Several technologies have been developed in the most recent years, and these are geared towards addressing the increasing global food insecurity. Top on this list is genetic engineering which enables mass production of food crops. Concerns have been raised by scientist amongst other groups of people in the biological field about the safety and sustainability of these genetically modified organisms. The applicability of this technology in relation to feeding the swelling population of the world remains debatable. Even though GMOs are characterized by several negative effects, the widespread application of the technology that is behind them, holds the single greatest hope for global food security.
The world’s population is increasing each day, making it difficult for conventional methods of crop production to output enough agricultural produce for the entire global population. Genetically modified foods have now been considered as the best option with respect to addressing global food shortages (Weisser, 2016). GMOs have better resistance to insects as compared to their more conventional counterparts. They are also relatively more tolerant to herbicides. This implies that, with genetic engineering, production will be done sustainably, and in turn, this will be occasioned by a suppressed use of pesticides and fertilizers. Again, this technology makes it possible to produce considerably nutritious food, which in turn helps to address the issues to do with malnutrition, which is most commonly expressed among children. Mass production is possible with this technology.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Biotec cotton was grown in India in 2002. To this end, a study conducted in order to determine yield changes showed that cotton yields increased 7.625.7 pounds per hectare while costs of production are reduced by $143.32 per hectare (Weisser, 2016). The reduction in cost was majorly due to reduced pesticide use. The advantage here is two-fold, stakeholders in the industry are enjoying higher returns on investment, and little harm is caused to the environment Biotechnology has also been applied to the Brazilian sugarcane industry where millions of tons of sugarcane are produced annually. Corn is grown in the U.S using the same technology, and the results are overwhelmingly positive (Weisser, 2016).
GMOs have their negatives as well. Opposers of these foods argue that GMOs demand more input towards production. Robbins (2016), for example, argues that the plan to produce golden rice was not fully implemented due to the heavy capital investment which is required, mostly in terms of water, fertilizers and pesticides. These claims are, however, unclear, seeing as the proposers of GMOs have tried and tested evidence which points to the contrary. Also, these same opposers claim that genetic engineering is a health risk since it interferes with the natural order of things. For instance, the golden rice even though it was believed to have been the solution to malnutrition, contained Vitamin A in a form that could not be absorbed by these same malnourished persons whom it claimed to target (Robbins, 2016). Furthermore, Monsanto and other interested companies have in the past carried out familiarization campaigns whose cost far supersedes that of the implementation of genetic engineering programs. This disapproves of their supposed intention to apply genetic engineering to the global food problem. If anything, these companies only intend to politize the global food problem for their own selfish economic interests.
Considering that GMOs have more identified benefits, my take is that they can indeed solve the hunger problem in the world. Changing the genetic composition of organisms is the most certain way forward towards global food security.Sugarcane has been grown in large plantations in Brazil by the application of GMO technology. Farmers can now enjoy benefits due to economies of large scale, seeing as genetic engineering fosters production. Further, the economy of the country is growing, stimulated towards this growth by the now vibrant sugar industry (Pimentel, 2004). Also, corn and soya beans as grown in the United States and biotech cotton as grown in India extensively apply this technology, and this has greatly improved the lives of farmers through reduced cost of production and increased incomes. The claims by opposers of genetic engineering that it needs more capital investments ignore the fact that genetic engineering has a better return on investment and yield per acreage. As such, they are baseless. Furthermore, it has been proved in the production of sugarcane in Brazil that little inputs are required. Also, the issue to do with astronomical advertisement costs can be mitigated by the adoption of better austerity measures.
The population of the world is increasing each day and is projected to reach incredibly high levels by 2050. Mass production is possible with genetic engineering, and therefore, it remains the better option in regard to food security. The negative effects that are presently associated with genetic engineering can be offset by the engagement of further scientific research. Besides, world leaders acting in collaboration with public welfare stakeholders may work out policy frameworks under whose provisions genetic engineering should be universally rolled out.
References
Pimentel, D. (2004). Changing genes to feed the world. Science , 306 (5697), 815-815.
Robbins, J. (2016) .Genetically Modified Foods Are Not the Answer to World Hunger. Global Sustainability .
Weisser, D. (2016). Genetically Modified Foods Can Help Address the Global Food Crisis. Global Sustainability .
