Transgenic plants, love 'em or hate 'em
The question on whether plant should be genetically modified is widely discussed. There are so many advocates on both sides that are completely convinced that what they think is best, that it is quite hard to determine who is right. On all topics where opinions are so divided, it is obvious that both sides have remarkable benefits, or drawbacks.
In the case of transgenic plants, the proponents are right to be a big fan, there are many reasons why transgenic plants are viewed as the future of food security. Transgenic plants can be altered to make it a better crop in specific or general situations. Generally, is can be used to be more resistant to pesticides, or can be modified to be more resistant to plagues itself, thus decreasing the need of pesticides. Other more specific situations could include extra nutritional values for a certain target group that is vulnerable to a certain nutrient deficiency.
On the other hand, there are many people who think that all of these benefits can come with huge drawbacks, or simply don't like the genetic altering of organisms at all. there there is good reason for that as well. When I was researching both sides, the lack of sufficient test on genetic modification both humans and environment came up over and over again. There are already many examples where transgenic plants have proven to be harmful for human health and the environment, when the risks of larger adaptations in nature on the long term have yet to be proven wrong.
I am myself not a huge fan of transgenic plants, I understand the incredible benefits it can have, but to introduce such a radical change in nature is for me hard to approve. Of course there has been more radical changes introduced to nature, but I think it will not benefit the nature and could even threaten the food security in a couple hundred years if there are only going to be one or two companies who control all seeds that are patented, which I for one can easily imagine.
The question on whether plant should be genetically modified is widely discussed. There are so many advocates on both sides that are completely convinced that what they think is best, that it is quite hard to determine who is right. On all topics where opinions are so divided, it is obvious that both sides have remarkable benefits, or drawbacks.
In the case of transgenic plants, the proponents are right to be a big fan, there are many reasons why transgenic plants are viewed as the future of food security. Transgenic plants can be altered to make it a better crop in specific or general situations. Generally, is can be used to be more resistant to pesticides, or can be modified to be more resistant to plagues itself, thus decreasing the need of pesticides. Other more specific situations could include extra nutritional values for a certain target group that is vulnerable to a certain nutrient deficiency.
On the other hand, there are many people who think that all of these benefits can come with huge drawbacks, or simply don't like the genetic altering of organisms at all. there there is good reason for that as well. When I was researching both sides, the lack of sufficient test on genetic modification both humans and environment came up over and over again. There are already many examples where transgenic plants have proven to be harmful for human health and the environment, when the risks of larger adaptations in nature on the long term have yet to be proven wrong.
I am myself not a huge fan of transgenic plants, I understand the incredible benefits it can have, but to introduce such a radical change in nature is for me hard to approve. Of course there has been more radical changes introduced to nature, but I think it will not benefit the nature and could even threaten the food security in a couple hundred years if there are only going to be one or two companies who control all seeds that are patented, which I for one can easily imagine.
Comments
Post a Comment