This week in Time magazine:
This week in Fortune magazine:
The GMO controversy: Time to move on?
From the Kokomo, Indiana Herald newspaper:
In a scholarly response, I want you to summarize what you read in one of these articles. What I would like even better.....would be for you to find me another legitimate article and post that article on the blog. Copy the URL and put it at the beginning of your blog response. Then write your paragraph. What did you read? What do you think? Will GMOs help solve the problem of world hunger? Should companies be required to label their products that contain GMOs? Are GMOs any worse for humans that the pesticides and chemicals that are already being used on different agriculture products? Would you feed your kids GMOs or would you try to avoid them?
I read the Time Magazine article, and at the start they were talking about how Scotland wants to bane GMO's because it will not keep their land clean and green. And near the end they were talking about how GMO's have been in the USA's food supply for around 20 years. I don't think that GMO's will solve the hunger problem, but I do think it will help it massively. Having the ability to make genetically engineered food will make it easier and faster to make and provide food. So as long as the scientist making these crops still forces on what we need from food and still focus on our safety when eating these crops, I think I would consider feeding these to my kids. Also I think that companies SHOULD be required to label their products which contain GMOs. Because there will still be those people that are trying to not eat GMOs, so if the companies that dont label dont want to get a law suit, then I think they should label their things. For their sake and ours.
ReplyDeleteI agree that I don't think it will help world hunger, but I do agree that I think it could help other topics! It's a good point that these crops help to provide more food faster and easier but I'm not sure that there helping what they started out to help! Totally agree with the last sentence!!
DeleteIt's a good point that companies should disclose GMO information to avoid law suits. It's still a rocky subject that people need to be careful and considerate about. There are people with really strong opinions that would be willing to make a big deal out of mis-labeled or no labeled products. Good thinking Presley!
DeleteI do not think that GMOs will help world hunger. We already have an abundance of food in out world, but the big problem with hunger is transporting the food which is not going to be helped by crops resilient to plant killing chemicals.
DeleteI agree. If companies are afraid to say that they use GMOs, then they should not be using them in the first place.
DeleteI agree. If GMO's could help with the hunger problem, I think it is better off that we use them. I also agree with the Non GMO labels. If it is people's personal opinion not to eat foods with GMOs in them, they should be able to pick out products that fit their needs.
DeleteI agree with all of your points except this one "I think I would consider feeding these to my kids." I personally (if I had the choice) would not give my kids GMOs, I stated in my paragraph that I think in the future it will be a lot harder to come by non-GMO foods but I believe it is possible. So if I have the chance to feed them "real" food I will but if not, that's the way it is.
DeleteOverall I liked you're paragraph, it was well stated.
I agree with your opinion in how g.m.os have the potential to solve world hunger. I don't think that we have looked into g.m.os enough to completely stomp out world hunger though. I also feel that g.m.os could help stop harmful pesticides.
Deletei also agree that g.m.os could be a big help to world hunger and people are dismissing them too much plus you wont have to use pesticides
Deletehttp://www.takepart.com/flashcards/what-are-gmos
ReplyDeleteThe article I read was the article by Time. I read about how there are 16 countries that have contacted the European Union that they want to get out of the European Union approved genetically modified crops. I think if I were one of the 16 countries that now want to get out of the European Union I would definitely want to get out. The countries have even said that they have being in this with them for about twenty years and haven't seen as big of a solution to world hunger as they were promised. If that were me I would have wanted to get out of the deal because it's not making a difference it is just having these countries eat crops from a lab. Which is gross if you think about it. I think that GMO's could help solve world hunger but we would have to put even more work into it to make if feel like we aren't eating off of a lab bench, but more that by helping grow these crops we are making it possible for those kids who used to go to bed hungry, go to bed full. I think that companies should be required to label that they used GMO's because half of the time we don't even notice that we are eating crops with GMO's because we aren't aware that they are in our food. If I were a parent I would not want to feed my kids GMO's but I know that if I have children they will most likely have GMO crops if we continue to grow these crops into the future to help world hunger. So the real question is, are GMO's helping world hunger at all? Or just saying they're helping?
I agree with this. Gmos have a chance to help with world hunger, but also need a lot of work and time to develop.
DeleteI agree that companies should start labeling foods containing gmos, but i don't 100% agree that GMOs cant help stop world hunger. If we increased funding we can come up with a healthy way to increase the amount of crops we produce making it possible for countries in need to produce crops.
DeleteI think you make a great point with the illusion that GMOs are making a difference. We have no proof that world hunger rates are decreasing. I agree that GMOs need a lot of work in order to achieve their claimed potential.
DeleteI agree that those gmo products should be labeled. Also i read too that some people say they are going to help world hunger but then some people say its just an excuse.
Deletehttp://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/what-is-gmo/
ReplyDeleteI read the second article posted from Fortune.com on how people who have been debating the subject of GMO are tired of talking about it because there isn’t much new information being introduced. Basicly, they feel they are going around in circles. I had heard of GMO in the past through avenues like food labels, but had never really understood what it meant, so the website I featured above is partially dedicated to explaining what GMO actually is. GMO is a strange subject and I don’t for sure know where I stand on it. Although, it has lead to health problems and is not considered to be safe in many nations, which makes me lean towards personally not wanting to consume anything GMO. I do believe that people have a right to know if products have come in contact with genetically altered ingredients. It is not fair to us for companies to leave us in the dark on what we really bring into our homes because we are supposed to be our own advocates and have the right to decide what we want to put in our bodies. Consuming GMO should be a conscious choice, not something we just have to agree to. Even though pesticides are not fully disclosed on each individual product, they technically only affect the outside of produce and can be washed off/avoided. GMO is either included, or it's not. You can’t prevent eating it because it is so deeply embedded into the organism. These ideas alone make it seem that GMO is worse than pesticides because it is inescapable. I would not want to consume GMO.
I agree that it's not fair that companies aren't telling us about what we are actually bringing into our homes. We need to have the choice to consume GMOs knowing the risks, not just be blindly forced into it. I also didn't really understand what GMOs were until I read through a few articles explaining them.
DeleteI agree with you that people have the right to know what they are consuming.
DeleteI have to agree with you that companies should label if their product contains GMOs. But honestly, I don’t know if it’s possible to not consume anything with GMOs. So many companies use them, there’s little to no companies that don’t use them. Although I would like not to consume anything genetically modified, I have a feeling it’s not the easiest task.
DeleteI totally agree with you. If companies even were to put a label on the packaging than it would be our fault but without this, we are truly in the dark. I think the first step to fixing GMO is to spread awareness because I also did not fully understand this concept until I was asked to reading up on it.
Deletehttp://www.wholefoodsmagazine.com/columns/consumer-bulletin/gmo-controversy-what-you-need-know
ReplyDeleteAbove is a website to learn more about the gmo controversy.
I read the Time article about gmos. This article was about countries opting out of gmos and introducing gmos to different countries. Some countries are afraid of gmos and that they might hurt their “clean and green” label. I believe using gmos is a good thing and many countries and people can benefit from this. The U.S. has been using gmos for 20 years and there has been no major downfall. Gmo’s have the power to end world hunger and need to be taking seriously. For the concerns of others however, companies should be required to label their products if they used gmos in the process of their product. I wouldn’t care if my kids ate food produced by gmos, but I will be lucky enough to purchase other foods without gmos, so it’s a fine balance.
I agree that they have the ability to end world hunger but the current current gmo that have been developed recently have shown no sign of ending it at all.
DeleteI totally agree, we have been using GMO's in America for a long time and it hasn't harmed our land or body. So I think those countries that want to keep a clean and green label would be fine using gmos, they arent going to kill your land or their label.
DeleteVery good point. There hasn't been any major issues to GMOS that we have found yet. We should keep using them until we spot a major problem in either health or money.
DeleteI agree with the point you made about feeding your kids with an equal balance of foods with an without GMOs.
Deletehttp://www.wholefoodsmagazine.com/columns/consumer-bulletin/gmo-controversy-what-you-need-know
ReplyDeleteThis week I read the article from Fortune Magazine called The GMO Controversy: Time to move on? which I found very interesting. I agree that it is time to move on. The article talked about obsessing over GMOs has slowed progress on so many other fronts. We have been arguing about it for about 15 years and just can’t keep messing around with it. I found an article from Whole Foods Magazine (which I linked above) that described some things of GMOs like genetic pollution and the lack of GMO labels on products. Even though there is no label for GMO-free products, the chance of finding GMOs in food is incredibly high. Although it is impossible to tell by reading labels in your local grocery aisles, 65% of all their products have DNA-altered ingredients. Even some organic products may contain GMOs. I think companies should be required to label their products containing GMOs so that people can be more aware of what they are putting into their bodies. Personally I would avoid feeding my children GMOs, because children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GMO foods for the same reasons they face the greatest risk from other hazards like pesticides and radiation. Young, fast-developing children are more susceptible to allergies, problems with milk, and nutritional problems, which could be caused by these GMO foods. I wouldn’t want to risk hurting the growth of my children. Overall, I don’t think GMOs will help save world hunger because since they are modified, they may not grow in the available resources we have without heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides. This is not something we will want to have to deal with.
I agree to it is time to move on, we have spent way to much time focusing on these "food" items, that it seems we have made a mess we cant get ourselves out of. But, I also think people are starting to realize this problem more and more, which may result in the end of GMO's soon
Deletehttps://www.quora.com/If-you-could-only-eat-one-food-for-the-rest-of-your-life-what-should-you-eat-to-have-the-most-balanced-diet
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/11/06/cl.healthful.foods/
First of all, me and my children’s diet will consist mainly of eggs and peanut butter (see the articles above). As for eating GMO’s, the human body is far too resilient to be defeated by a few chemicals. Based on the given articles, I think I’ll take my chances with whatever I can find. The GMO’s just need a little bit more research, that’s all (and the money for that research had better not come out of the tax dollars I’ll pay).
But what about how GMOs threaten biodiversity? You can’t deny that they’re harmful to other plants as well as animals.
DeleteI like your take on it.ON how GMOs aren't as harmful as people make it out to be. It was really cool to see someone else perspective.
Delete"The human body is far too resilient to be defeated by a few chemicals." Well the scientists who have found proof of those "few chemicals" causing serious health problems would probably disagree with you. Check out this article. It shows ten scientific studies about GMOs and includes several credible sources.
Deletehttp://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/opinion/gmos-and-feeding-the-world.html?ref=topics&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn the article above, I read that GMOs are not solving world hunger currently; GMOs will never be the key to solving world hunger. GMOs are just crops modified to withstand deadly cancer-causing chemicals that we can eat. The thought of eating deadly chemicals is not appealing to me; consequently, I will not be feeding my children or myself these deadly disease ridden crops.
I read the Time magazine article on gmos. Its shocking to hear that over half of european union countries are opting out of gmos. That must be a bad sign. Some countries think by bringing in gmos that it will affect their green society reputation. I think gmos are a terrible thing because they are not perfected are still very dangerous. They contain chemicals that are harmful to plants and animals.Companies should be required to label whether or not their products contained gmos.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/are-gm-foods-destroying-biodiversity.html
ReplyDeleteI read this article, and it basically talks about GMOs affect on biodiversity. It points out the many ways GMOs harm plants and animals around them. For example, GMOs “built-in” pesticides can be harmful to an animal that consumes the crop. Or, how the kill weeds, but some of these wild plants can attract animals that get rid of pests, helping the farm. Another problem with GMOs is that they can pass traits down to wild plants. These new traits could give the wild plant a new role in its ecosystem, causing it to compete with and possibly drive out other plants.
Personally, I feel that GMOs are not safe, and we should stop using them. Yes, they grow faster, and produce more food, but destroying the environment is not a price I’m willing to pay. I feel like companies should be required to label their products if they have GMOs, because someone could want to stay away from them, or it is possible that someone could have a medical problem with eating GMOs or some the ingredients in them. To be honest, GMOs are probably safe for most people. But the real point behind this debate is that biodiversity and the environment is being harmed, not just humans. It’s not always about us. I personally would like to stay away from GMOs, but because so many companies use them, it would be kind of difficult to not eat anything containing GMOs.
http://www.infowars.com/deputy-prime-minister-of-russia-gmos-arent-needed-to-feed-world/
ReplyDeleteI read the atricle The GMO controversy: Time to move on? by Fortue magazine. The article said that we need to stop debating GMO's because there are way more important things to be worrying about. I agree with this whole heartedly. I have never in my life been effected in any way by GMO's. There seems to be no problem consuming them based on the fact that they have been in America for 20 years. In the article I linked above, it said that we don't need GMO's to feed the world. So, if GMO's were actually a big deal, we don't need them anyways.
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-good-bad-and-ugly-about-gmos/
ReplyDeleteThere is no real proof to whether GMOs are bad or not. For me i think that GMOs are a good idea to help reduce the use of pesticides or other more harmful chemicals. I think that if we put a little more research and funding into the creation of genetically modified foods we will be able to come up with a safe way to produce more crops. By doing this we will become closer to ending world hunger at a lower risk.
I read some studies where animals that were feed GMO's died while the animals that ate traditional foods had no damage or deaths. I think you're on to something about the funding though. We seem to have given up and are just going with the flow. If people start working even harder to make sure GMO's could end World hunger we could get there.
DeleteI agree that if maybe there was more funding and research GMOs can become beneficial but as of right now they aren't creating any benefits.
DeleteI read the article from Time Magazine. Since I was a part of the GMO debate group, I already am familiar on the subject. I think current GMOs are harmful and unhealthy and with the state they are in now, they will do nothing to aid towards world hunger since these foods aren’t even that available in impoverished countries. Companies should be required to label their foods that contain GMOs because just like products that are tested on animals, they may seem safe but a label can go a long way in spreading awareness and informing the public about GMOs and their abundance in our food industries. GMOs have enhanced pesticides and chemicals to make them more resistant to change and disease. Because of this, by the time these products reach your plate, some of these pesticides and chemicals may remain. I would certainly join these 16 countries in the banning of GMOs from my diet and the future generations diet if the current state of genetic modification persists.
ReplyDeletehttp://naturalrevolution.org/the-good-bad-and-ugly-about-gmos/
ReplyDeleteIn this article that I found it showed the good things about using GMOs and how they are made. Some reasons why we should use GMOs is they require less tillage,plowing which is done by burning fossil fuels so if we cut down on it we won’t burn as much fuel. Another reason is with GMOs we use less herbicides and less pesticides which means we will have less chemicals entering our soil and groundwater. GMOs provide us with A better harvest than what we could get with regular crops with in return means more food is grown to feed our continuously growing countrie.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/02/gmo-foods-what-you-need-to-know/index.htm
ReplyDeleteThe fact that 16 countries want the European Union to ban GMO's is great news for me. I have had GM strawberries from Sam's club and they were sweet and as big as a lemon, but they didn't taste like the real thing. It didn't say that it had GMO's I could clearly tell because I have been strawberry picking and the real deal is really small and not as sweet. But the Sam's Club ones are huge and sweet and there was only 10 big strawberries in a big container. GMO's could help save world hunger but there are other more Eco-friendly solutions. We need to stop destroying plants and we will have more food. I dont think GMO's harm anyone (for now) but they put so many chemicals it's hard to say what will happen with so many of those in your body. And they will not make companies label if it's GMO's or not because a lot of high government officials have ties with Monsanto and they just will not let that happen. Pestecides are similar but I would rather eat a pestecide organism than a GMO. I would not feed this to my kids because GMO's because they taste better than the real thing, and we still don't know the outcome.
http://kokomoherald.com/Content/Community/Community/Article/Ask-the-Expert-Myths-behind-genetically-modified-foods/32/759/25367
ReplyDeleteI read about how GMOs affect population, health, and a bunch of other things in our lives. After reading this article I thought about how bad GMOs actually are. I don't think will help solve any problems because most people can get sick from them. And they are better for the food because they give us more nutrients but for us they can give us deadly disease. GMOs sure kind of help us because they do in most cases make the food more healthy and the diseases aren’t that often.I would most likely feed them to my kids unless some outbreak in disease from GMOs are happening.
http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/ This webisites article has some really good points about the downsides of GMOs.
I wouldnt give my kids GMOs because if you wouldnt give needy people some because of disease why would you feed them to your kids.
Deletehttp://www.saynotogmos.org/
ReplyDeleteI chose to read the third article about GMO's, and thought that the factual evidence included in it, was pretty interesting and shocking. I read about how GMOs are being kept on the down low, as well as some of the results and data that has come from animal testings, and Monsanto. (The company that provides the herbicides for farmers). I think some of the information contained in the article was quite shocking, like how the mice died two weeks after consuming GMO foods. I don't think that GMO’s will help solve the solution to world hunger because I have read multiple articles saying that GMOs actually reduce the yield rate, which proves that GMO’s don't help, but actually hurt the path to solving world hunger. I think companies should be forced to label their GMO products for the sake of the people actually knowing what they're eating and what they are putting into their bodies, and what they are actually eating. But then, there is also the problem with the pesticides. When researching for my debate, I came across an article that stated; “farmers have used an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide use, and in result created a super weed.” It's kind of disturbing to think of the amount of herbicides being used today like that, but it's just part of the shocking truth that comes along with GMO’s. For the sake of my (future) kids health, I would try to avoid GMO products as much as I could, but in reality, would be nearly impossible to do with all the GMO products on the market today.
Here's also some other websites regarding what foods include GMO’s, and why we should give them up; http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/11/21/foods-give-up-avoid-eating-gmo/#!fullscreen&slide=1585679
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs
Yes, Neaven, I agree with you that instead of reducing world hunger it has been looked at as unsatisfactory and even dangerous to human health as various science tests have shown.
Deletehttp://www.naturalnews.com/050454_GMO_research_biotech_dangers_health_issues.html
ReplyDeletehttp://fortune.com/2015/09/29/gmo-controversy/
After reading the fortune magazine article, I felt very hesitant at the thought of letting the matter of GMOs go as the article suggested. I saw their point in how a fifteen year long debate was not likely to end soon concerning GMOs. In the article, it was suggested that maybe a move toward incorporating insects into their diet along with harvest power which was creating energy out of food waste. The first article posted above talks about how,through various tests, results have shown that GM food such as corn and soy caused damage to the rats killing them compared to the control group. Alternatives to using GMOs can be highly beneficial that are much safer. GM foods should be labeled in stores and markets to make people aware of what they are eating. GMOs are not the answer to world hunger because of the apparent threat they present to human safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/opinion/gmos-and-feeding-the-world.html?ref=topics&_r=0 In the article “Over half of the E.U countries are opting out GMOs “ by Health Magazine, they talk about how 16 of the countries in europe are against the use of GMOs. Some of the countries don;t want to use them because they are afraid that it will hurt their reputation as a “clean” countrie. Some also feel that they aren’t safe and that by not using them they will protect their agriculture and their food. The E.U. legislation is allowing this ban. We here in the united states do you use GMOs even if we do feel that they can be unsafe. While half of europe is against GMOs we here in the states still believe that they do some good for us.
ReplyDeleteI think that even if GMOs were proven to be safe, they still wouldn’t solve the problems for world hunger. The reason is that even if there was more food in the world the 1st world countries would still take all of that food and there still wouldn’t be any food for those in the third world countries. In some ways GMOs aren’t any worse for you than the other chemicals that are already on the food.The reason is that there are still chemicals going into you body, and since your body is use to chemicals nothing will happen. Companies should be forced to inform people on what is on/in their food, so they can make the decision about what they want to put in their bodies. Lasty I would try to have my kids avoid GMOs. due to the fact they aren;t the healthiest thing to put in our body.
I agree with you,Despite GMOs being proven by scientist that they are safe and all,it doesn't mean that it will solve world hunger.
Deletehttp://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/
ReplyDeleteDuring the article i found out 10 different reasons why GMOs are bad for you. The pesticides used are causing big problems to the human body and causing birth defects in children. This is a big deal because we shouldn’t be eating things that will harm us or someone else. During the article they talked about how they should label the package if they use GMOs so that people know what to stay away from. I agree because if people don't know that it contains GMOs it would be bad for them and they would be harming themselves without knowing. But i also found a different article that talked about them being good and not as harmful as everyone thinks.
https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm
In this article it talks about how it would help to solve the growing problem of world hunger that is really bad. Also it would help make better crops that could help benefit economic problems and sell more. Overall though GMOs could help in a positive way but they also are very unhealthy for our body. I think they should stop using GMOs and try to figure out a much healthier way to grow crops and other foods.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/29/gmo-controversy/
ReplyDeleteThis is the website for the article I read on this problem.
My opinion on GMOs is that it is time to move on with it. In this day and age most people are heading towards the organic side of food. They eat out less and are realizing that it helps out a ton. Organic foods are a ton better for you than anything else that is original. The only downside to going all organic is that the food cost more because it takes more to put it together and to grow it if it is a fresh crop. I was eating a bagel this morning and I saw that on the butter package it said Non- GMOS. That brought to my attention that maybe this is a bigger problem than most people state it is. Then I started looking around my food objects and it says NON-GMO on a majority of the food labels. 95% of the food in my house are organic and maybe its going to be a big war against GMOS and Organic food producers. If the U.S. does not stop using GMOS there really isn't any downside to that. Its just that some people don't like the fact that they are eating something that has been modified.
I would agree with you Christian. The argument is basically that some people don´t like unnatural food. I think that the UNited Stats will soon rely on GMOs heavily.
Deleteactually organic and gmo crops are almost exactly the same eating completely organic food isn't necessarily healthier for you
DeleteI think that GMO has become a major problem and the scientist have know idea what to do. The diseases caused by GMO are getting worse and time as they say is running out and with out fast action we are going to be in some serious trouble. I think That GMO is a bad thing because we don’t know who could get the diseases and have no way of knowing whether or not GMO is in our food or knowing if we could get the disease. Since the GMO is far imbedded into the food that there is no riding of it like washing an apple to make sure there is no pesticides on it. I think that the first major step to starting to solve this problem is spreading awareness to those around us since after reading some blogs of my classmates many of us didn’t know how big of a problem we have on our hands. fixing this problem that we have created is a tremendous challenge for scientists to solve since they have no real direction of aim on this subject yet.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that GMOs are a bad thing and that if we don't do something fast time could run out.
DeleteI read the Times article on GMOs. The article was about how multiple countries in the EU were banning the use of GMOs in their crops. It ended with stating how GMOs have been in the crops grown in the U.S. for over 20 years. I think that even though GMO’s might not completely solve the problem that is world hunger, it could bring us a step in the right direction. GMOs have been used in the U.S. for years, so I don’t think they’re any worse than the pesticides farmers use. I think we need to use GMOs in farming, in order to get to solving World Hunger.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
ReplyDeleteGMO stands for genetically modified organisms. They are living organisms whose genetic material was changed in a laboratory through something called genetic engineering. These do NOT occur in nature. GMO’s are advertised as healthier and more resilient. Many countries ban GMO products but the US is not one of them. The US has not banned them based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. It might solve world hunger, but would you risk disease to eat them? For that reason, I wouldn't feed my kids them either.
I agree. I wouldn't feed my kids GMO's either. They can cause organ damage, and immune system disorders which I wouldn't want to risk.
DeleteI agree. There are no real studies showing the consoquences so why risk it?
DeleteI agree the componies who made them approved them and are getting paid for producing them so how do we really know that what we might eat with gmo's and what effects it will have on our body's again the corporations that made them approved them so how do we really know the extensive risks if the corporations just want to make a quick buck
Delete
ReplyDeletehttp://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/truth-about-gmos
I read the 3 articles closely and I’ve decided that we should keep GMO’s as of right now. First off I’ll start off by saying I believe GMO’s are very wrong and we should have “real” food. I would of sided with the anti-GMO’s if our world wasn’t in the current state it is in; If we just automatically banned GMO’s we’d lose out on a lot of food and all the companies would have to rework everything. My family owns a farm (Uncle lives on it) and whenever we drive over to it, it’s a lot of fun but I don’t know if our crops/cows got GMO’s or not (Still not 100% sure on the process that this happens.) In the article I linked above, on the last page it talks about the pros and cons of GMOs here are a few of them: Pros: More food, Less stress on the environment, Cons: More medical problems, The rise of “Superweeds.” If you want to learn more on these go to the article and read up on them but I still can’t believe how much food we’ll have if we continue to use GMOs. I believe that we should have companies that use GMOs to label their products, I personally did not know we had GMOs in almost all our food but after reading this article I do. I would personally love to not give my kids GMOs but if the things keep going like they’re going I have a feeling in the future it will be hard to find non-GMO foods. Overall I think we need to keep them as of right now and slowly stop using them, it sounds hard but if we’re all in it together I know we can do it.
I agree that there are many pros and cons of GMOs, and that as of now we should be open to the idea due the rising population issue we are facing. I also agree that in the future it will be hard to find non-gmo foods, but this is a reality we all will have to face.
DeleteI don't agree with you, I think that GMO's can lead us to solving world hunger. We eat them all the time and yet we still get our nutrients and we are still living long.
Delete@ANGELICA ALVAREZ I agree with that is why I said we need to keep them right now; I just would personally not like to be eating/feeding my childeren GMOs. I do believe it can help with world hunger I'd just like to get rid of them some day.
DeleteAll three articles discussed the debate of either keeping or losing GMO’s. While all three were factual, Ask The Expert contained more opinion than the other two. The evidence and statistics provided are all auspicious of losing the GMO’s. GMO’s have killed rats, decreased their brain activity and countries that went all for the GMO’s are trying to backout. The reason people seem so upset with the GMO’s was because they were made to end world hunger and more issues but they haven’t, and all the articles pointed this out.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-gmo-debate-5-things-to-stop-arguing/2014/10/27/e82bbc10-5a3e-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html
Based on the article linked above I read about the common debate topics surrounding GMO’s and whether or not they are a legitimate statement. I think the author has a brilliant point and style of writing this article. I personally do not support GMO’s because we survived and lived on whole grown foods for thousands of years and while the essential point of GMO’s was to end world hunger it hasn't so there’s no point in producing them. I think the quote from Jurassic park relates a lot to this debate, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” I don’t believe GMO’s are as dangerous as ingesting pesticides but it is not something we should brush off there is still some danger. We all deserve to know what we are eating so any product whether it is clothes or food or whatever you could make sure be labeled with a GMO containing label. I would try to avoid feeding my kids GMO’s as best as I could. Einstein didn't need them, why do we?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/truth-about-gmos
I read in the Time magazine article that many countries in Europe were going to ban the use of GMOs. They claimed they wanted to keep their reputations clean and also that GMOs had not lived up to their hype. These countries opting out of using GMOs has put the European Union in a tough spot where they might have to go back and require more testing. I think we should use GMOs because they will help end world hunger and are not as bad as people are saying they are. I mean the United States has had GMOs approved for the last 21 years and nothing bad has happened. I think it should be up to the people; if they want to eat GMOs then let them but companies should be required to label their boxes if they contain GMOs. I would say no GMOs are not worse than pesticides and no I would not try to avoid giving GMOs to my kid. This is the world we live in and we will need to rely on GMOs in the future.
I agree that companies should label their boxes, but GMOs aren't solving world hunger. They're supposed to produce a bigger harvest, but the starving parts of the world are in third world countries. The problem of world hunger is that there isn't enough food being transported to these countries. Also, 21 years isn't very much time to understand long term effects, and some labs would disagree with your statement that nothing bad has happened.
DeleteI agree with you Alex, I think that GMO's should be a purely a personal decision and if you want to put you body at risk (even though we've been fine for 21 years) then you should have the right to do it.
DeleteFinally someone who has the same view point as me. I agree completely with your opinion Alex. There have been many studies proving GMO's are healthy, and do not harm the people eating them. Relating this back to World Studies, What can more unhealthy than eating bugs/?
DeleteI agree with you on the opinion that GMOs should be a personal decision as well. In most articles I read, it stated that GMOs are dangerous but your comment convinced me otherwise.
DeleteI read an artical about how Testing has been done on rats using gmos and non gmo products. The study showed things such as legions and death in the rats that ate the gmo products and none in the rats that ate non gmo foods. It also discussed the fact that many types cancer have a correlation with chemicals and that they aren’t good for us but companies like monsanto say that these studies are not reliable or scientific. I personally think gmo’s have a major correlation with people getting cancer and having so many health problems. I see it as we wernt ment to digest and have these chemicals put through our body so why is the goverment allowing it? Getting rid of gmo’s will most likley not help solve our issue with world hunger but it’s better to find a new solution then slowly kill people and give them health problems through genetically modified food.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wholefoodsmagazine.com/columns/consumer-bulletin/gmo-controversy-what-you-need-know
ReplyDeleteI learned that despite the few advantages there are many disadvantages to GMOs. As of right now there is no law stating that products need to have a label saying if it has GMOs or not but, this should become a law because some people don’t want to be eating products that were genetically modified. Most products have at least one GMO inside of it, this can be dangerous considering that their can be cross contamination. This can also cause allergic reactions because people aren’t always aware that things have been biotech contaminated. Although actual GMOs aren’t unsafe it can lead to issues and become detrimental to the population. I also read the article from time magazine and I read that 16 countries want to prohibit GMOs. This shows that this would not be a good solution for World hunger because countries all over the world are prohibiting genetically modified crops so without out any countries allowing them. GMOs are causing more problems then the problems that they are solving. There needs to be a better solution to world hunger.
link to an article i found : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2015/03/31/gmos-of-the-future-two-recent-studies-reveal-potential-of-genetic-technologies/#.VhbBYlUViko
ReplyDeleteI think that the argument about gmo’s is very interesting. everything that we do to these plants is monitored by the FDA. The FDA makes sure that if you eat these genetically modified crops nothing bad will come of it. the good thing about creating these genetically modified crops is that we can make them have a higher tolerance so that they are less likely to die in weather that is too cold or too hot. if these plants have a higher tolerance the farmers will have less of a crop loss so the cost of vegetables and fruit will be lower which means that it will be easier to nourish the malnourished. if you use gmo’s you won't have to use pesticides.pesticides are actually more dangerous because by using gmos you change the dna of the organism instead of spraying a chemical on it. i would let my kids eat genetically modified crops because pesticides are actually more dangeous.
Ah yes the forever long debate on Genetically Modified Organisms or more specifically genetic modification by directly altering the genes as domestication is technically a form of genetic modification. Anyways Fortune does bring up a good point, why argue? We have choice over what we feed ourselves and a quick Google search will tell what’s GMOs or not. But if I had to pick a side I’m honestly for genetic modification if used correctly. FOr instance if it’s used to yield bigger crops to help feed more people I have no problem, but with companies like Monsanto making their seeds the only ones to survive their pesticide is down right wrong. I’m sure that with better research and morals genetic modification can be a useful tool against hunger.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
ReplyDeleteI read the article from the Indiana Herald Newspaper. It basically explained how the test subjects for the GMO crops either got sick or died. To be honest, I haven't heard much about GMO’s before this year, and this isn't a very good first impression. I do think that because they are somewhat easier to make, it will be quicker to solve the hunger issue, but it's not the safest way right now. If companies are using GMO’s, then they should DEFINATELY label their products. It wouldn't be fair to the people who don't want to consume those chemicals. I’m not sure if the GMO’s are any worse than pesticides and other chemicals, but I don't think I would still eat those crops now that I know that the testing rats died from eating them. In the future, I most likely will not feed my kids genetically modified crops. If it comes to the point where all farmers are producing is GM crops then maybe then I will, but until then probably not. I hope that someday farmers and scientists create and further develop better GMO’s because it does sound like it could work someday. But until then, I don’t plan on eating anything that is genetically modified.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/
ReplyDeleteI read the article from Fortune Magazine, and found some of the points that were made very interesting. Before reading this article, I thought that GMOs were harmful, but after reading I found that GMOs may not be so bad. GMOs pose many positive points, such as they could be a step in the right direction to ending world hunger, they have not be proven harmful, and many products have contained GMOs over the past twenty years, and no related side effects have occurred.I think that GMOs could be used to help stop world hunger, and in a world where the population keeps rising, that may be a must very soon. Seeing as chemicals and pesticides have been mixed in with our food for quite some time now, I don’t think that we should worry about GMOs. Seeing as most people are already eat products that contain GMOs, I think I may let my kids eat food that contains it, pretty soon I’m sure we won’t really have a choice. I do think that in an always changing world and population, we need to be open to new ideas, because without them we may be in trouble.
I completely agree with you!! GMOs have not been proven to be harmful to people!! I just wish everyone would realize that. It's faster and cheaper to use GMOs, and it really doesn't make a difference.
DeleteI completely agree with you. So many people have just assumed that GMOs are harmful, while nothing has actually been proven. GMOs can, not only, help to end world hunger. They can also help to make more crops in less space. This means that there will be less pollution from farm land. GMOs can help us in so many ways.
DeleteI read an article called are transgenic crops safe? I think my article is trustworthy since it's made by the united nations university and has edu in it. I read about GMO crops being used in Africa and whether they were safe. According to the article GMO crops are safe and developed countries are going to start pitching in in order to ensure that they stay safe. The article stresses that GMOs are increasing the income and food production of farmers which allows them to live a better life but the article says that many politicians in africa still avoid GMOs. I think I would give my children GMO foods because there aren't any studies that have good evidence against GMOs and I've never had a reason myself to not like them. If GMO production increases I think it could solve world hunger and since we need to conserve space it is important to use efficient farming techniques.
ReplyDeletehttp://time.com/4060476/eu-gmo-crops-european-union-opt-out/?xid=homepage
ReplyDeleteI read that many countries are banning GMO’s for example Scotland. Due to the fact that they’re known for their green environment, they don’t want it affecting their agriculture. I think any country has the right to decide if they want GMO’s I personally, I’m for GMO’s. I do believe that GMOs can help us be on the right path towards curing world hunger. Companies should label their products that states it’s GMOs you don’t want a big lawsuit or anything like that. I don’t think they cause any harm towards humans, we’ve been eating them for so long that we haven’t had an outbreak of disease due to the GMOs. I would feed my kids GMOs.
I would have disagree. In the article I read, GMOs are actually very harmful. Experiments performed on rats had proven that GMO only diet can cause fatal illness in as short of time as 3 months. "I don't think they cause any harm towards humans, we've been eating them for so long that we haven't had an outbreak of disease due to GMOs." What if the mutations in GMOs evolve? They have a high potential of causing major health issues in the future.
DeleteI also disagree and think that the U.S. should learn from what these countries are doing and stop the usage, growth, and sale of GMOs because of their genetic makeup. I still believe that some GMOs could have the potential to harm people.
Deletehttp://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
ReplyDeleteI read the Time article, which said that sixteen countries in the European Union want to opt out of GMOs for several reasons, such as keeping their country "clean and green" or because they don't trust the safety assessments of the E. U. In my opinion, GMOs won't solve world hunger, considering that the main reason world hunger exists is because of the lack of transportation of food to the third world countries. GMOs are simply adjusting crops to withstand pesticides, not changing transportation systems. From what I read, it seems like no one really knows the effect of these new crops because we haven't had enough time or research to truly understand their long time effects. For this reason, companies should definitely have to label their products containing GMOs, because some people view consuming them as a risk to their health. Especially because eating “real” and organic food is becoming more popular. Personally, I wouldn’t feed my kids GMOs, nor would I send them to third world countries. Unmodified food has been healthy and effective for a very long time before now, and if we’re going to transport food to struggling countries, we should be completely sure that the food has no harmful side effects - long term or not.
I agree with you that the main problem with getting food to third world countries is transportation, but not all starvation is taking place in third world countries. Walk around for a day in Chicago and see how many starved paupers you can find. I guarantee you'll see more than you'd like to. Use of GMOs in American produce could lower prices of crops and make them more accessible for those in need. They could also help world hunger in third world countries, GM crops are not restricted to certain geographical locations. If you can't get the food to these people in need, give them the seeds and hope they find success in growing more resistant crops.
DeleteNeil, I understand that there are many hungry and homeless people in Chicago and the US, but their main problem is not a lack of food. For quite a while, the US economy was not doing well, which resulted in less jobs and more homeless people. The people on the streets spend their days trying to collect money, not food. Even if we used GMOs to produce way more, the majority of the food would still go in stores and have a price tag.
DeleteG.M.Os are not healthy for the environment. European Countries are not using G.M.Os because they are harmful for the environment. For Example they could damage scotland's clean and green reputation. More and more governments are opting out of G.M.Os and are sticking with the normal plants. The main reasons for this ban on G.M.Os is because they did not do what they were supposed to. They were supposed to stomp out world hunger and eliminate the use of pesticides. In the U.S G.M.Os have been produced for over 20 years. They are closely monitored by the F.D.A and they have placed some regulations on them, the benefits and the risks have been balanced out for now. There is some benefits to G.M.Os and there are some risks too.
ReplyDeleteExtra Article: http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/
ReplyDeleteI read the TIME article on GMO’s. I personally disagree with GMO’s. Many companies claim that since people have been consuming GMO’s for many years, health isn’t a risk factor anymore. But this is not true. There have been many studies to show GMO’s causing organ damage, and immune system disorders. It could possibly solve a small portion of world hunger, but is it worth the risk of disease? Companies need to label their foods if they are genetically modified. Many people would want to avoid putting these chemicals into their bodies. They have a right to know where their food has been and what has been done to it. Because of the effects of GMO’s, I would try and avoid feeding them to my kids.
I totally agree with you that sure GMO's are helping small portions of world hunger but as you said it does have some big down sides to it. I feel that I would personaly would try to avoid GMO's but is I have to have them I would.
Deletehttp://archive.hudsonalpha.org/education/kits/gmod/gmos-made
ReplyDeleteI read the Time article, and it agreed with some of the point brought up on the reasons of the sixteen countries opting out of GM crops. Especially when they said, “the problem with GMOs isn’t necessary the technology, but the fact that they haven’t lived up to their hype.” I don’t believe GMO’s will help solve hunger until the technology for it becomes far more advanced. Although I don’t think GMO’s will help that much, I also don’t think they will do much harm. Because they are made by cutting strands of DNA to make an artificial pesticide, it shouldn’t do much harm to the body, or at least any more harm than the pesticides already in our food. I believe that they should put GMO labels food, but not as a warning, but just to say it has GMO’s. This would mean that people who are against GMOs could easily see what foods they can and cannot eat.
I agree with your viewpoint on labeling. Some people just can't stand GMOs. However, I am a bit skeptical on your viewpoint regarding harm. If GMOs aren't harming humans, then why are so many people against them?
DeleteAlthough GMOs are a possible fix to world hunger, there are many other things you can do besides producing GMOs, because GMOs have been around for the last 15 years and there been no so called break through yet. GMOs are just a thing. They are a myth that hasn't been proven. It's been debated on for 20 years. It been used for around 15. We don't know if it truly helps or hurts us. I would not choose to serve these products to any of my family because while it could be a solution to world hunger we don't know if it's healthy or not. Time is being wasted on this one topic that's already had its time to shine; something new needs to be introduced. I believe that world hunger is a huge problem but I just don't know if GMOS are a valid or healthy solution. We should be finding different ways to solve this problem that's not modifying what we eat. Is that really a good idea? Feeding GMOs to children not knowing the consequences? I think GMOs are a real problem that need to be stopped using to end world hunger. Let's find a better solution.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2014/12/10/367842658/debate
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/opinion/gmos-and-feeding-the-world.html?ref=topics
ReplyDeleteI read an article from the New York Times titled “GMOs and Feeding the World”. The article reveals that GMOs do not actually solve the problem of world hunger. GMOs are created so that farmers use less pesticides. Technically speaking, we have more than enough food that could end world hunger now (2700 calories per human). This proves that GMOs are practically pointless and are just decreasing biodiversity in their attempts to murder pests. While I believe that GMOs are pointless, I do believe one thing; companies should label their products with GMO crop. Genetically modified organisms can cause liver and kidney problems (which normal pesticides also do, just not to the extent of GMOs), and some people do not want to test the validity of this through their own diets. I would allow my children to eat such products though, as it is very difficult to find food nowadays that do not contain GMOs.
The topic of all these articles is GMO's whether the articles think that GMO's should be banned or whether they think that everyone should just drop it and forget about it. What is the answer to this question? I don't know, but what I do know is that these articles brought up some very interesting points. For example the Scotland ordeal with "Keeping the country clean and green." I strongly support this idea because in the end no matter what you say GMO's are just not natural its your choice what you put into your body but they are not natural and I think it is great that Scotland went ahead and said that. Anyways aside from Scotland I believe that the debate over GMO is not a worthy one. One we don't even know yet if GMO's can solve world hunger (I don't think they can) and as far as health for the person I believe it is a personal choice. For the most part we know that a lot of companies use them and its a personal choice whether you want your diet to be affiliated with those companies. Would I feed my kids GMO's? At this point in time yes because we haven't come far enough in research for me to have any opinions on feeding it to my kids. However I do think it is important that companies let people know if something has GMO's in it for the pure use of easy decision making for the people. For more go to
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_914968.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nwherald.com/2015/09/14/mchenry-county-farmers-advocates-watching-proposed-gmo-labeling-law/a7y9206/
The time article was about countries opting out of GMOs. Some scientist say that it's not the technology of the GMOS but more that they have not lived up to the expectations of solving world hunger or significantly cut down on the need to use pesticides. In the article it also stated that GMOs have been in the US for 20 year but I don't think GMOs will solve world hunger. There is no perfect solution to stop world hunger but i don't think GMOs are making a big enough difference for us to use them. But if the United States continues using GMOs i think there should be a big label saying the food was made using GMOs because and we have a right to know what is being done and put on the food we are eating. that way if some people don't mind if GMOs have been used on their food they can have the GMO food but if they do care they can look for food without the GMO labeling. I don't think GMOs are that much worse than the pesticides that are being put on some other foods but i think getting rid of those pesticides is a bigger issue that we also need to solve. I think the bigger issue of using GMOs can be solved by making them not as harmful to humans and people would be more accepting of them. I would try to avoid feeding my kid GMOs as much as possible and go for the most organic option but GMOs can have very harmful effects but they usually don't cause death so if worse comes to worse GMOs on my kids food wouldn't be that bad.
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/about-ge-foods
ReplyDeleteI read The GMO Controversy: Time to Move on? and the article was mainly about how we are spending too much time debating whether GMOs are the right thing to do. I do agree that we are spending way too much time talking about weather it's the right thing to do, when we could be talking about more pressing matters like melting permafrost and species extinction. I also read the artical About Genetically Engineered Foods and it was mainly about what was being genetically modified and the risks of genetically modified foods to humans and other organisms. I mostly think that GMOs are bad for us and that we should really only rely on organic foods that have not been tampered with. I also think that there should be a law to say companies have to show on the package if the food is genetically modified or not, because there are many people out there that don't or can't eat genetically modified food. But I don't really think that it's any different that spraying pesticides on crops, in general I think that we should try to get rid of all the chemicals that aren't naturally in the foods and try to stick healthier options.
I read http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/. I Thought this artical was very informational and told me a lot about GMO's on top of what i already knew. I believe that GMO's will stop the war on world hunger, because they cost less, don't need to be sprayed with what normal plants do that harm the society, and they produce more food easier. Even tho i don't care, they should put labels on GMO foods, just so people know. GMOs aren't any worse for humans then the pesticides and chemicals that are already being used on different agriculture products. I would feed my kids GMOs, because they aren't sprayed with pesticides and chemicals.
ReplyDeletehttp://gmoawareness.org/
ReplyDeleteThe article I read was about country's deciding to ban genetically modified crops. Scotland did this because they wanted to uphold their fresh green land and not tarnish it with grow plants with gmo's. Others opt out of this because they did feel the need to have gmo's in their food. I agree with this statement because gmo's have made little to no benefit to the food crisis so there is no benefit in eating them.I thought it was goon countries were starting to ban gmo's I'd rather eat natural food over someone's science experiment. Gmo's may solve world hunger in the future but right now they are making little to no effect on world hunger. Companies should label their products with contains gmo's because people have the right to know what they're eating. I don't think Gmo's are as any worse than pesticides or chemicals in agricultural products and while there are no huge harmful risks there have been reports of diseases and illnesses whether these were caused by gmo's who knows. So while gmo's aren't harmful they certainly aren't helpful. I would try to avoid feeding my kids gmo's because they aren't helpful nobody knows the full extent of risks in consuming them.
http://time.com/4060476/eu-gmo-crops-european-union-opt-out/?xid=homepage
ReplyDeleteThe article I chose to talk about is the Time magazine article. In this article I learned how 16 countries in Europe have opted out of E.U approved GM crops. This includes major countries like Germany and Italy. The reasoning for all this is they think the safety procedures are not exactly trustworthy and the approval system needs to be reconsidered. Many of these countries want to say green and natural, to avoid the whole modified food idea. Scotland for example is known for its beautiful natural environment, and doesn’t want to wreck their reputation of being “Green and clean”. I do think that GMOs will help solve the problem of world hunger, but only if regulations are tighter and the GMOs are used for the right reasons. Companies should be required to label their products that contain GMOs due to freedom of choice, consumers should know what is in their food. After doing research I can say that GMOs are not worse than pesticides, because there is not deadly chemicals meant to kill within them. If I had kids I would let them eat GMOs because if they are food and have been around for many years, then I do not think that my kids would be affected at all by them.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/
The Time article informs us about 16 countries from the European Union that want to have GMOs banned from their land.Some of their reason why they disagree with the use of the GMOs is that they believe that their absence would improve the green status and that they simply don't trust the E.U. safety assessments. However ,unlike the 16 GMO-opposed countries,the U.S has kept them for 20 years.Personally,I don't think that GMOs are really that bad,despite what others think.GMOs were my topic for the debate and I found out many things about them.There is no proof that they really contain harmful chemicals.So I would say that they are no worse for humans than agricultural products that have pesticides and chemicals on.I would consider feeding my kids GMOs since there has never been a bad effect on me .But still,companies should label their product that contain GMOs,people have a right to know that it does.On the other hand,I don’t think that GMOs can actually solve word hunger.Its true that its food and all but it is not enough to truly solve the problem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/146.herbicide_resistant_crops.html
This article is about how genetically modified plants are being created to resist all herbicides. One of my first thoughts was that I didn't know that there were many benefits to the production of GMOs. Although there are some benefits to GMOs, I still believe that they are harmful to human consumption. I think this because the body was made to consume food in their natural state. In my opinion, GMOs can solve world hunger because the crops are modified to last longer and grow bigger, but the result of more people consuming GMOs can lead to more health problems such as illnesses. Companies should be required to label their foods that contain GMOs. This is because we deserve to know what's going in our bodies whether we agree with consuming GMOs or not. I've decided that neither GMOs or pesticides are better than the other--they both cause harm to the body and promote and unnatural diet. In the future, my kids and I will not strictly avoid genetically modified food but we will definitely not go for the GMOs first. I plan to keep myself as well as my kids energized with as much naturally healthy foods as possible.
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/what-is-gmo/
ReplyDeleteI read the Time Magazine article. They first touched on the topic of many different countries and their opinion on GMO’s. Scotland had said, “In August, Scotland publicly said it would prohibit GMO crops out of concern that they could damage the country’s “clean and green” brand”, (Time Magazine Paragraph three). Throughout the article it was talking about how America is going to protect the agriculture, and food of our environment. I believe in the counter argument in that GMO’s will help the fight against world hunger. All it is doing is giving the plant resistance to certain biotic and abiotic factors. If ⅕ of the world's farm grown food is discarded, then it seems we can do something to reduce that number. In all three articles, it explained that pesticides and other chemicals were added to the crops. However, it also explained that it does not harm the farmers spraying it, as well as inhaling it. I also believe companies should label whether or not GMO’s are included. By doing this, it gives the people the decision of whether or not they want to consume GMO’s. I don’t think that GMO’s are harming the people consuming it. There have been many studies done on whether or not GMO’s are harming the population. The answer is no. I would feel comfortable feeding my kids GMO’s.
So countries all around the world aren't just restricting gmos but getting rid of them altogether. Personally I think this is both a good idea and a bad idea at the same time. Cause currently there not all that great at stopping world hunger and They don't seem to be good for your health. This does however give GMOs time to develop and become better in all aspects. So Scotland can bring them back and not lose their reputation for being the greenest nation.
ReplyDeleteI read the Time Magazine article. It was about 16 countries who told the European Union that wanted to opt out of approved GE crops. The article talked about how Scotland would be more green if they didn't have GMO's and how governments are growing on the opinion that the GMO's shouldn't be approved. They also brought up the fact that GMO's haven't delivered what they promised: Limit world hunger and to cut down the cost of pesticides. I don't think that GMO's will ever reduce world hunger because we put it on ourselves. Food will grow with or without GMO's. All products should have to label that they used GMO's in their product because some people don't want to put that in their bodies. For people that are against GMO's it must be hard to eat when you have no idea if it was made with GMO.
ReplyDeleteFor more about GMO clink the link below:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/what-is-gmo/
http://www.naturalnews.com/050454_GMO_research_biotech_dangers_health_issues.html
ReplyDeleteI used the article above to learn about GMOs and how they can harm animals and humans alike. experiments have shown that GMOs can cause tumors, cancers, and premature. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be feeding that to my child. Scientists used rats and fed them GMO soy, which caused the rats to be very ill, and most of died off. GMOs should definitely be labeled on foods. Most people share my opinion and don’t want to be feeding their families cancer. To be honest, I don't believe GMOs could help the population, besides maybe killing some people off. There are less morbid ways to eliminate hunger, via growing organic foods and using more space to grow it. There is a way to solve our world’s problems, but using GMOs is not one of them.
I read the time magazine article and it was about the 16 other countries trying to prohibit the use of GM crops because they don't trust the E.U. with keep in it safe. The GMO have been a part of the world for 20 years now and i don't think this will affect anyone if it goes on farming crops. However Scotland and more governments are standing against it. I think that GMO will help with the world hunger because more food will be produce in a quicker rate.
ReplyDeleteIn the time magazine article it explained how 16 countries in Europe are opting out of GMO crops. The countries don't trust the inspections and think the GM crops are bad for people. The GM crops also have not lived up to their hype, they are not solving the worldwide crisis of hunger so the countries would rather just go natural. I don't think GMO's are solving any problems of hunger, and I don't think they are good for humans either. I believe they harm humans in some way and should be illegal. I would not feed GMO's to my kids, I would try to avoid them. As of now my family and I are trying to avoid GMO type things right now. There are pesticides that are more natural and not as bad so I believe the GMO's may be worse then the pesticides. In the Time article they did say that are risks of GM crops. Overall, I do not think GMO's are bad for you and are not solving any hunger issues.
ReplyDeletehttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/genetically_modified_food/index.html
Out of the three given to us, I chose to read this article: Myths behind genetically modified food
ReplyDeleteThe article I chose on my own: Is genetically modified food safe?
In Myths behind genetically modified food is really focuses on the dangers believed by many that are results of GMO. Even though GMOSs could solve world hunger, they can be very dangerous. For example, it states that rats suffered with lesions after they were fed GM tomatoes. That really stood out to me. Even though a rat is a lot smaller than a human is, if it took a short amount of time to make a tiny rat sick, imagine what would gradually happen to the humans over time. That is really scary to think about. Companies should definitely label when there are GMOs in their products because some people do care and want to avoid them for health issues. I would try to keep my children away from GMOs. In the other article I read, Is genetically modified food safe?, it really argues against the fact that they aren’t. We should maybe come up with an alternative to GMOs.
http://www.today.com/health/gmo-fears-t18036
ReplyDelete“There's been no clear evidence that genetically altered foods, which we've been eating since the 1990s, can hurt you.” This quote from Today News, Linda Carroll, pretty much sums up my opinion. There really is no proof of GMOs being harmful. Some tests show that crop yield is occasionally lowered due to GM crops, but I believe this could happen with any crop. If you plant 100 corn stalks, sometimes you’ll get 80 ears of corn and sometime you’ll get 150 ears, this isn’t due to GMs, it’s due to Mother Nature having her own plans. Nonetheless, I believe all GM products should be properly labled with chemical ingredients incase someone would be allergic to them or not eating them just makes them feel better. Personally, I don’t mind GM crops whatsoever, for a period of time my family discontinued use of GM produce and I noticed no difference in personal health at all. On top of this I would go so far as saying that I think GMOs could be healthier for us over time. I’d rather see a label on a package saying that the produce contains one or two extra chemicals, then see a warning that it’s been sprayed with every herbicide and pesticide known to man for literal health reasons and psychological reasons.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/07/29/gmo-foods-debate
ReplyDeleteI don't really have a side to this debate because it seems like both sides have an even opinion on it. I might be leaning to the side to stop using GMOs because it seems healthier, but like they say in the articles, I think the debate has gone on for too long and the debate needs to stop. We are wasting time on deciding whether we should use GMOs, while we could be finding solutions to other problems. If I had kids, I would not feel uncomfortable feeding them GMOs because I think it is a part of life and the way we make food.
http://fitnessreloaded.com/eat-gmos/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/26/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/
I read the first article by time magazine. This article was about how many countries want to ban GMOs. I decided to do some research on how horrible GMOs really are. After looking at many sites, I have found that there is no actual proof that GMOs are bad for humans or the environment. Most problems that were thought to be caused by GMOs were disproven. I feel that GMOs could be the answer to problems such as world hunger and the harm of pesticides in foods. Instead of banning GMOs for things that haven’t been proven, countries should be using them more for all their benefits. I think that these countries should do serious research before they blindly prohibit all use of GMOs.
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/what-is-gmo/
ReplyDeleteI read the Time magazine article and it is explaining how some countries are no longer trying to use GMOs. Over half of the European Union, 16 countries, believe that genetically modified crops aren't what they need. For example, Scotland has a reputation of having a beautiful and green country, and GMOs would ruin that. Honestly I'm not sure what I believe about GMOs. I've heard that they help farmers grow crops faster, which means cheaper. I've also heard that they are not as healthy or fresh. I think that it really doesn't matter because there has been no negative outcomes from them. I haven't heard of anybody dying from GMOs. Plus, they save a lot of money and time for us consumers and the farmers. If my children ate food that wasn't modified, cool; and if they were, also cool. There's nothing wrong with GMOs in my opinion.
In the Time Magazine article, and at the start they were talking about how Scotland is trying to ban GMO's. But how in the US we have been using GMO's in food for 19 years. I don't think that GMO's will solve hunger problems, but i think it will have some kind of positive impact. Having the ability to make genetically engineered food will make it easier and faster to make and provide food, but if scientist can find a way to provide food that way that is still healthy. I think we should consiAdler it consider how rapidly the hunger problem is growing. So I think that companies should be required to label their products which contain GMOs, considering there are some people who still do not want to eat GMO's.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/truth-about-gmos
ReplyDeleteI read that there are 16 countries looking to stop GMOs because they want to keep the world clean. I believe that GMO's could solve world hunger in a minor way because even though the chemicals are dangerous, the food is food which can end our hunger. However, I do think that companies need to label their foods if they're GMO's. This could allow people to make a conscious decision of what they are getting into. I think that the chemicals would be worse because the pesticides don't get to every crop and they also can be removed at times. If I had kids, I would not feel comfortable in having them eat these chemicals, I might even just start my own garden in my backyard, healthy and natural.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732
ReplyDeleteI read an article from scitable "Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology" in this article I learned/read about the current use, Potential GMO Applications, Risks and Controversies , and the history of GMO's. After reading this i still think GMOs were taken way out of hand and really are not that healthy. I Also do not believe these could not save world hunger because they are way too expensive like it stated in the article. The more expensive items are the less people can buy which in my opinion would make the percentage of world hunger increase. Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public and this is something i do believe is happening and really should not be because its not necessarily fair to the people buying them. Overall I really do not like GMOS because theyre expensive and seem unhealthy , also i think this debate should be over if you want them you do if you don't you don't.