Genetically modified crops refer to plants that are used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been customized using methods called genetic engineering. The objective is to introduce a trait that is new to the plants and does not occur naturally in the species. Genetic engineering is a tool that aids people to breed crops that resist diseases, drought, and insect pests ( Smyth, 2017). This means that the farmers achieve a yield that is higher from the crops they grow to generate extra income and feed their families. This paper aims to discuss the arguments against and for genetically modified crops. The paper also discusses the scientific, and political economic issues on these crops. The argument about genetically modified crops is nuanced, an ongoing and highly contentious issue as it relates to the supply of food. Individuals from the medical and scientific fields fall on both sides of the argument (Pearson, 2019). Some of them claim that these crops are aiding to solve the issues concerning environmental sustainability, hunger, and the increasing population globally. On the other hand, others believe that the crops are doing more harm than good. The new ways to improve the agronomic recital of crops for feed, and processing applications and food have been a device with the emergence of transgenic technologies. Additionally, the aptitude to express the foreign genes the transgenic technologies have an option that is opened up for large quality pharmaceutical products in plants or large qualities of commercially significant industrial products in plants. In the danger management of GM plants, the precautionary approach may make it essential to monitor significant weed and wild populace that might be pretentious by transgene escape. Bringing genetically modified food to the market is an expensive and lengthy procedure and agro-biotechnological corporations wish to ensure a return that is more profitable on their investment ( Smyth, 2017 ). Therefore, many new genetically modified plants and genetic engineering technologies have been patented and there is a big concern of agribusiness on patent infringement. The key economic qualms are the danger of enforcement of patents which can obligate growers to depend on corporations such as Monsanto for strain when their crops are cross-pollinated. Genetically modified crops had shaped a political furor in worldwide. The individual who is on the side of the controversy argued that genetically modified crops symbolize the major advances that are achieved in agriculture, On the other side others believed that genetically modified crops would trigger a broad several of serious well-being and environmental harms (Pearson, 2019). The governments of the countries that are developing responses to these concerns in several ways with some banning genetically modified crops outright. Some governments embrace them while others attempt to find a balance between the needs and the concerns of all sides. Most scientists say that hunger is a result of composite socioeconomic events that there already exists supplies of food to sufficiently feed the world that produces more food than ever before and that the cause of hunger is poverty which is borne of lack of access to land and food, inequality, and also insufficient distribution of existing supplies.
Conclusion
Crops that are genetically modified have the possibility to solve several of the malnutrition problems and hunger in the world. Besides, the crops have the potential to preserve and protect the surroundings by reducing dependence and increasing yield upon chemical herbicides and pesticides. However, in the areas of security, international policy, regulation, and food labeling, there are potential challenges ahead for administrations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Pearson, J. W. (2019). Essential Environment: The Science Behind the Stories 6th Edition,2019 ISBN:9780134714882. Pearson,6th edition(February 9,2018).
Smyth, S. J. (2017). Genetically modified crops, regulatory delays, and international trade. Food and Energy Security , 6 (2), 78-86.
