In recent years, the increased use of modern science and technology has intensified; scientists are now searching for new alternative ways to sustain life and health. Due to the growing human population, the inevitable Thomas Malthus theory of whether we will run out of food to feed the people becomes an actual concern. As a result, these scientists are beginning to attempt to increase their disease resistance, muscle density, offspring production, and milk protein in hopes to produce qualitative and quantitative food for humans. However, there are dangers and untested sides to this kind of science, and many question whether the products of these experiments are worth the hazards. Personally, as I was first researching information for this topic I leaned on the side advocating for the use of science to help solve this issue. However, the more I read, the more I became skeptical about this practice. I will present the facts and allow you all to decide for yourselves whether we should continue down this path.
Since the boundaries of genetically modified animals are still being tested, there are many unknown possible risks that may emerge. One of these is the possible escape of experimental animals into the environment; this may cause an outbreak of a foreign disease to a habitat and annihilate the unsuspecting wildlife in that region, resulting in the endangerment of certain species. It also has the potential for the transfer of the disease and genetic material to humans, and due to the lack of knowledge surrounding these experiments, it is yet to be determined whether it could have long-term consequences to those who are exposed.
Furthermore, because of its relatively new stage, there is a also lack of laws and regulations surrounding the use of animals in such experiments. Because of the minimal laws there are about certain types of animal testing, biotech companies are not required to disclose information on the activities occurring within the laboratories. This allows scientists to test the animals to however they see fit, whether it is ethically justifiable or not, and thus, there is little evidence of their experiments known as they only disclose what they voluntarily release into the public. Stemming from this begs the question as to what’s occurring behind closed doors that could be potentially harming these animals to increase their yield. For instance, there has been cases in which animal abuse is taking place in laboratory testing. Opponents of genetic engineering on animals claim they are treating them as “test tubes with tails.” In fact, there are cases where transgenic pigs became infertile, blind, and arthritic when human growth genes were injected into their DNA. These cases are simply cruel, inhumane, and savage, they have yet to prove to have positive results; this essentially means an innocent life was destroyed with no beneficial outcome.
However, despite the negative sides to these experiments, this science has seen technological improvements and began introducing more laws concerning the genetic engineering of animals will improve and make promising achievements in the future providing animals with safer environments and protect humans from possible disease outbreaks. As more success of this genetically modified testing science progresses, it can help push US legal systems to ratify the laws concerning this type of animal testing and provide a safe testing environment that will protect the animals and the humans along the way. Even though progress has been made on the science side of this testing, there is still the safer alternative and more reliable practices than the unpredictable methods of trial and error; for instance, selective breeding has proved to be just as effective as genetic engineering and does virtually no harm to the animals in question.
Ultimately, the search for a reliable source of medicine to benefit humanity will continue to progress. As stated, there are clearly dangers to this new method of science, but there are also some promising results that could potentially benefit humanity in the future should we decide to venture down this path of science. Do you think we should use GMOs to increase crop yield? Do you think the risks outweigh the benefits? What other methods of sustainability can we attempt to use to prevent extinction? Is it ethical to treat animals in this manner?
29 comments:
I think that GMO modified foods have become such a huge part of our lives that it would be unreasonable to take them out. Many people want the tasty fruits that they currently eat without the steps of modifying the food to be "perfect". This puts up a double standard because not only is the public advocating for more organic produce, they aren't willing to pay the higher prices or give up the exemplified quality of the food. Yet while I do think GMO crops are useful, the genetically modified animals are a different playing field. Messing with the living creatures in an ecosystem for our own use and comfort is not ethically correct. They are living in the same manner that humans are and have a family to provide for. Even though we eventually consume these animals, it's still not ok to tinker around with them and treat them like dolls. There are more effective ways to fix the problem of extinction such as limiting ourselves to the amount of meat we eat. By consuming it only when it is needed and on special occasions, we can save the population numbers. Another way is to preserve the habitats of the animals and stop deforestation to allow more animals to thrive in their locations. If we use these alternatives, it will be much more effective and morally correct to solve the problem of sustainability.
I do think we should use GMO’s to increase crop yield. For developing countries, this could prove instrumental to their development. Although they are might be unhealthy and don’t float well with the rich families of Flower Mound, GMOs can provide more nutrients at a cheaper price for poorer families and developing countries. I do think the risks outweigh the benefits but only for certain people. There are many other methods of sustainability such as becoming vegetarian. It would cut down on the slaughtering of animals for food, which is indeed an unethical practice. I think genetically modifying plants is more ethical than modifying animals, therefore treating animals in this fashion is wrong, but it’s different for plants. The plants can contain high nutritional value which can help so many poorer people.
Though GMOs may increase crop yield, it is not always worth the risk. Animals are being wrongfully tested on and genetically modified, and the efffects of these actions are not even fully known. However, I think that food made with GMOs could be a good idea for citizens in developing countries, where food needs to be mass produced at low and affordable costs. In addition, not everyone can afford non-GMO food, so the accessibility of genetically modified food is important for many. Even though GMOs can have positive benefits to some communities, genetic modifications could make certain species more susceptible to diseases, and even affect the human population. I would be more supportive of the use of GMOs if they were tested through a safer method, such as selective breeding, where it is less likely for animals to get hurt or transfer a harmful disease to other animals or people.
I support the use of genetic modification in plants or crops. GMOs increase crop yield, extend shelf lives, fortify crops, and contribute to a better tasting and looking plant. I believe that many people don't support GMOs because they don't fully understand what it is or how it works. In a Jimmy Kimmel segment from a few years ago, people were asked if GMOs were good or bad and most replied that they were bad without even knowing what GMO stood for. Even a food as simple as an apple has been thorough tons of genetic modification to reach what it is now. In fact, without GMOs, apple would have never been edible, but now we have tons of variety and options for the single red fruit. Genetically modified crops provide sustenance and nutrition to people across the world and could be even be the answer for world hunger. I don't feel quite the same about genetically modified animals especially if they have to go through pain or illness because of the modification. Like you mentioned, selective breeding is probably the best way to enhance consumed animals as it does them no harm. Nevertheless, animals shouldn't be put through the cruelty of genetic modification because of insatiable human greed.
I support the practice of genetically modifying our food. Humans have been genetically modifying our food and livestock for as long as we have been farming. Many of our modern foods did not use to look the way they did. GMOs have also saved millions of life by allowing them to have greater yields and being more resistance to pestilence and conditions. I think the risks outweigh the benefits because of the potential to save lives. To prevent the extinction of natural animals we should keep the animals and plants contained to areas, as well as set aside more land to be natural ecosystems. I don’t think it is right to treat animals unethically and to do experiments for the sake of experiments, but I can understand that animal testing is necessary for progress. I believe experimenters should treat animals with respect and ethically.
I am not against using GMO’s to increase crop yields as we have used these for a very long time and it seems as though the benefits do outweigh the risks. As the question emerges of whether or not we can survive on a planet with this many people relative to food, there must be some steps taken to allow for it. When it comes to animals, though, I do not believe that they should be tested and modified in such ways. Treatment of this sort is inhumane and there are hardly enough regulations in place to dispute this. The future of our planet seems to require the phasing out of animal products, so why must humanity always go against the obvious? Further, from what I have researched before, there is enough food to feed most of the world. It matters more so how we are using that food and even wasting it. Before we resort to genetically engineering animals, we should look at the problem of food through the lense of what we could already be doing better and fix that first.
I support the use of GMOs because they will help sustain the rapidly growing human population. This is because this method of crop production allows the growth of large quantities of food, which can be sold to consumers at a cheaper price. This also allows us to help battle the world hunger crisis, by providing more food to supply area stricken with hunger and malnutrition. Therefore, the benefits of having GMO foods out weight the possible costs. We can also make this system for ethical by imposing more rules to regulate the treatment of animals, since the current system of animal treatment is not ethical (as explained by this blog). This may allow more people to lean in favor of GMO foods.
I too, like you, went into this with the idea that scientific involvement would help solve the food crisis, but as I read I was surprised. The lack of regulation and the ease of disease transfer to different ecosystems could be incredibly dangerous and end up destroying several valuable species and habitats. I would be interested in seeing more concrete research as to how the possible environmental effects compare with the positive impact that processes like these have on human populations, and I’m curious to see how future technological developments and probable further application of them effects our world.
Animals are callously being tested on and I think we should create some ways to prevent that from happening. However, I believe that GMOs can be helpful in different aspects. GMOs can advance agriculture in many different countries around the world, creating mass production. For example, the mass production of rice has been able to feed a large population of people for many years now. GMOs allow food to be accessible for so many people. I think implementing a carbon tax in more developed nations can significantly mitigate the amount of emissions. Consequently, this is a sustainable method to prevent global warming. Since global warming harms habitats and biodiversity, which leads to extinction of animals, reducing emissions with a carbon tax is a possible solution to combat this.
Though it can be potentially dangerous, I believe humans are much too reliant on GMO foods to completely eliminate them. Population is growing rapidly, especially in developing countries, and thus, food supply must increase to support these new people. Regarding the ethical issues of genetically modifying organisms, I strongly agree that the absence of rules and regulations is a crucial issue. In China, a scientist has already been arrested for researching and carrying out procedures for the first genetically engineered human baby. Undoubtedly, this is alarmingly unethical, given the potential complications that this child could have been born with. Without these crucial rules, scientists may continue performing unethical procedures that may bring more harm than good. Even though the scientist claimed that the implanted gene would induce resistance to HIV, the risk was far too great- an innocent life. This example shows the extent of this advancing technology, and the fine line of ethicality.
This is an interesting topic, and one that I am not inherently opposed to. GMOs do walk a fine line when it comes to food production, but I believe it is an acceptable choice, at least for now. Animal treatment, in an ideal world, would be ethical for all experiments, but as you mentioned, this is not always the case. Truth to be told, I’m not quite sure that the animals mass grown for consumption lead lives more ethical than the ones in the lab, but that isn’t the main focus of my comment. GMOs can undoubtedly produce more food for people. It’s been proven in the early stages of simple breeding with rice and corn strands up to the human creation and production of the immaculate and far superior Honeycrisp Apple. The thing is, a majority of the extra food produced from GMO’s won’t go straight into the impoverished hands of children in Kenya or India, instead people of high economic status will be able to eat steak 4 or more times a week. GMO’s by themselves are wholly beneficial, in my opinion, it’s the managemnent and execution that can make or break such a powerful weapon for or agianst hunger. If the top 10% of the economy focuses more on what they need, not on what they want, GMO’s have the power to potentially end world hunger, but that is no easy task. It’s the Tragedy of the Commons. Wow, that rant escalated quickly. Anywho, that was a great post!
Similar to many scientific achievements, GMOs remain a controversial topic. Although some believe that GMOs are harmful, it is important to not let its benefits be overlooked. The advancement of GMOs and bio genetics is essential, especially in today’s world. As populations around the world increase, it would be challenging to maintain a steady birth/death rate unless a more sustainable food source is created. The most rapid way to achieve this would be through experiments. It is, however, imperative that these scientific experiments are monitored and ethical. But if these minimum requirements of an ethical scientific experiment is met, I say we continue to find ways to make progress in the GMO world, not only to create more nutritious foods, but also to make faster growing plants and animals for a continuously growing global population.
The subject of GMOs is a hot topic. There are people out there who believe GMOs are the spawn of satan, when in reality there are many benefits. Using genetic modification, the yields of crops can be increased by making plants more resistant to pests, more fertile, etc. Experiments are necessary to figure out what genes need to be tampered with in order to produce the desired effect. With animals however, it's a whole different playing field. The sad thing is, in order to produce the type of meat we want, experiments are needed, and there will be some harsh unintended consequences. We have to remember that these animals are *animals*, and they will be eaten eventually, but it is important that these animals aren't abused. In order to get the types of foods we need to sustain the human population, a few animals will suffer more than they have to. I believe GMOs should continue being used and experimented with, but they should be closely monitored to make sure nothing unethical is going on. There are so many benefits that genetic modification provides that completely dismissing it is just stupid.
Although many people do believe that crops and animals should no longer be genetically modified, and others do, I am torn in between. I highely recommend that we use genetically modified crops because not only do they increase crop yield, they also are not as bad for your health as many people say they are. According to a study, it showed that genetically modified crops actually have more nutrients that’s regular crops. I am, although, not in favor of genetically modified animals and the things we do to animals for more meat. By doing this, not only do we torture the animals before it dies, but it is also very bad for someone’s health. Doing this is equivalent to what happened in the Chicago meat packing industry, which made many sick. Humans should only eat organic meat, and genetically modified crops are not a problem.
Although this can be heavily debated, I feel that the benefits GMOs present outweigh the potential dangers. GMOs are key in helping feed citizens of developing countries. As populations tend to increase and crops are dying due to various factors, the use of GMOs will better assist in sustaining the Earth's climate. As mentioned in a previous blog, ways to increase sustainability is through becoming vegetarian. Furthermore, a question arises when you are comparing genetically modified plants versus genetically modified animals? Is it ethical? As long as there are regulations that take place and the technology is safe, this may be a positive method of food production. However, it is crucial that the industry be regulated. This is because partly due to greed, many businesses may run questionable procedures in order to minimize the costs and maximize the profits. Thus, it is vital for regulations and protocols to be put in place.
Although there are some clear ethical issues that accompany the production and usage of GMOs, I believe that the benefits that GMOs have on sustaining the human population can't simply be ignored. For one, GMOs make fruits, vegetables, and meat products more accessible to poorer communities. GMOs also increase crop yield, which will help combat the issue of humans running out of food. However, I do think that there needs to be more action taken towards regulating the production of GMOs by the implementation of laws. This would hopefully make the practice more ethical.
Because GMOs are so widely used around the world, I feel that the removing GMOs isn’t a good idea. In addition, benefits oF GMOs outweigh the potential risks and are also crucial in helping feed citizens within developing countries. However I disagree with the use of animals for testing. Animal testing should at least be regulated by the government because abusing animals for scientific purposes is simply cruel and unethical. Although GMOs May increase crop yield, the cost of a human’s well being shouldn’t be the innocent life of an animal. Genetically modifying plants brings benefits to humans by placing more nutrients in the crops, but genetically modifying animals through torture and abuse is unethical.
While GMO's seem like a good idea in the terms of sustaining the growing human population, there are a lot of downsides and common misconceptions with GMO's. One of the downsides to GMO' is that it promotes breeding of various farm animals. ANimal populations, mainly cow populations are so high that the methane they produce is harmful to the environment. An alternative that I've seen become more popular is to eat plant-based meats, eradicating the use of GMO's in farm animals all together. The stigma behind GMO's are that they produce weird genetically altered, alien looking creature where we get our food from. While mistakes in combining and editing DNA is possible, it is not as severe as you might think. In fact, most foods that have edited genes are foods you'd never suspect, such as broccoli, cabbage, and kale. Even so, another alternative to the cow population concern are lab grown meats. Though this is something that scientists are still working on, lab grown meats are grown from a small cell to a healthy looking, perfectly safe piece of meat that is ready to be sold to consumers. This would be technically classified as a GMO, but without the harsh stigma of mutant animals being raised and killed. Like I've said before, this is a piece of technology that will take years, maybe even decades to develop. Perhaps the GMO issue can be solved simply with time.
I think its sad that people are so scared of GMO's and sometimes spread blatant misinformation on their safety. It is interesting to note however that most doctors and scientists believe that mass-market GMOs especially in developed nations like the U.S are safe for consumption. Although on the topic of genetically modified animals i admit that i think that this can be often cruel and inhumane. However, i do not see how this is different to other scientific testing on organisms. Mice, which are popularly used in most scientific research due to how the results of these studies can be applied to humans feel pain similar to humans. Most mice used in these experiments aren't given any pain alleviation and are subjected to harsh treatment. While I see the scientific benefits of both genetically modified animals and animals being used as test subjects in experiments i believe that action should be taken in order to minimize their pain and reduce unnecessary suffering.
I think that at the rate humanity it increasing in population, we might have to resort to using GMOs to sustain ourselves. At this point, mankind is nearing its carrying capacity, and the limiting factor is probably food related. Although GMO foods are still early in development, I believe that it is worth is to continue to hone a design that will be environmentally efficient and beneficial to humans. That being said, we have a long way to go before using GMOs will become practical and safe. I imagine that many would be against the use of GMOs for much of the same reasons listed in this blog post. I believe that we will be able to eventually work through these glaring ethical and practicality issues and utilize GMOs to our and the environment’s benefit.
GMOs seem to be more and more necessary as humanity progresses in the world of technology, health, and the environment. In this day and age, almost all our food has been genetically modified at some point in time. Corn, watermelon, oranges, and so many other foods have been modified throughout generations. When discussing animals, however, the question of ethics comes into play. Is it necessary to mistreat animals for the benefit of humankind? As unethical as it may seem, I believe it is important for increasing our food supply because of the ever growing population of the human race. Overall, I believe that by genetically modifying food sources, more nutrition and more food will be provided for humankind.
I think we should use GMOs to increase crop yield and that for now, the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. The reason I vouch for this option is because hunger is such a prominent problem throughout the world and absolving this issue would definitely improve the lifestyles of many. With GMOs, more people can be fed, which would allow these people to live healthier and longer lives due to more nutrition. However, I do agree with the points you addressed in your article about the unknown long-term side effects of GMOs that may potentially harm us. Until GMOs are proven to have significant negative effects on our lives, I would continue to support the usage of GMOs. As for the treatment of the GMO experiment animals, I definitely do NOT support inhumane cruelty given to these animals, but I think that this issue of the GMMO experiments can be resolved through the implementation of laws and inspections as stated in your article.
I think we should use genetically modified crops to sustain the human population. The human population must stop growing at some point, and if it were to ever be over populated, there would be food shortages around the world. By genetically modifying crops to produce more food for humans, the capacity for humans would be greater and there would be a higher chance for the human population to realize the effects of overpopulation before it’s too late. This would mean that the human population may stop increasing at some point and remain steady and sustainable. Judging by how fast the human population is growing, however, the risks of GMOs may have to be ignored in order to sustain the population.
Personally, I do think we should use GMOs to increase crop yield, as sustainable food sources are in serious need. Developing countries would be helped greatly by more reliable food sources, as it might reduce the hunger problem. Furthermore, many of our foods are already GMOs, such as tomatoes and corn, so I feel that the benefits have been proven to outweigh the risk. Animal GMOs, aside from selective breeding, are less proven and may need more testing. However, I do believe that eventually they should be implemented, as our population is still growing rapidly, and our reliance and more sustainable food sources will not go away anytime soon.
For the time being, I think GMOs are inportant to sustain the increasing population of its crop yield. Because a large majority of food is modified in some way to increase quantity, I would believe that decreasing the usage of GMOs would come at the cost of a hunger situation. Though, I do believe that there should be an effort to decrease the dangers of consuming GMOs rather than decreasing the production of it. We have become too reliant on the production of GMOs to make a change in quantity but there is room to be made in the quality of the product. I’m excited to see the growth of how these products will improve and continue to help out sustainability; hopefully not putting our population into risk.
If GMOs are able to increase crop yield dramatically, I say scientists should go for it. An increase in production will benefit people especially in poorer countries. However, as food production increases, population will increase along with it which will result in a positive feedback loop. I believe it’s worth to take the risk as the benefits currently appear to surpass possible harm. While we do not know the long-term effects of GMOs, I would still advocate for the usage of GMOs if they’re consistently increasing food production. While GMOs are a potential solution to starvation, simply conserving the amount of food you eat can also create sustainability. Eating to an excess can cause harm and avoiding this will prevent wasting food.
I think that GMOs should be used to increased crop yields. We already do it and there haven't been any real negative impacts. Not only does it make food grow faster, but it also increases the size of the crop and other many useful features. I am not sure if I would extend the same consideration to animals, however, if there is no harm caused to the animals then it would be ok. The ethical concern is very valid, and should definitely be taken into heavy consideration.
GMO foods are ubiquitous, and much of the hysteria concerning their safety for consumption is based on hyperbole. GMO crops can benefit developing countries. However, GMO animals pose a greater risk and ethical concern. Selective breeding is a better option as it does not involve inhumane experimentation.
Since GMO's have been proven to increase crop yields, I think scientists should work together with farmers to increase crops. This would help solve the problem of world hunger. While I do recognize the potential dangers and negative effects of GMO's, I think if they can make them suffer, they should increase their use dramatically. However, I do not condone the cruel treatment of animals. I think that should be stopped, and that we should find a better way to test the GMO's. With the growing population, it will become completely necessary to rely on GMO's to sustain human life.
Post a Comment