I think the source above is a valid argument towards GM food, I think this because she is the Chief Research scientist at CSIRO Plant Industry, this company researches ways into solving problems in developing countries, and she is in favour of using GM food. It also comes from some one who is not biased towards or against GM food, so that you won’t get a one sided report on GM food, I also think that this is a good source because she has done a lot of research into GM foods and will know what it can do for the environment and customers.
My second source is a group of anti-biotech organic food activists who want the world to be GM Food free. I got the information from an article called “The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World” written by the anti activists. They are a group of scientists who have done no extensive scientific experiments, no research and have collected no data to prove what they are saying about GM foods. They say the GM food failed to deliver the promised benefits to farmers and customers, and could cause problems on the farms, and are a number of risks involved with GM foods. They say that there is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria in the bottom of the human stomach, this can spread antibiotic resistant genes which can make infections hard to treat. They say that transgenic DNA from GM foods can survive digestion and can be absorbed by cells which can possible trigger cancer. They say that feeding GM foods to animals which will be eaten by humans will pose a risk to the human eating the animal and the animal itself. They say that the most important point is that GM food has not been proven safe, and people should not risk their health by eating GM foods because the damage can be irreversible.
I think that this source from the group of “anti-biotech organic foods activists” is less valid and unreliable. I think this because they have done no research and no scientific experiment to prove what they are saying is true. They are saying a lot of negative things about GM food which they can’t back up with collected data or research, they are just saying what they think about GM food. I also think that this information comes from a very bias source which should not be taken to seriously by any one. Some of the things that they are saying against GM foods have already been proved wrong by scientists. However they are voicing the concerns of many peoples view on GM food, and I don’t think their claims should be ignored just because they don’t have scientific proof
My third source is from a person that works in the industry of GM foods. I got the information from an article published on AgBioWorld.org. This person says that claims from anti-GM food activists that say that GM foods are unsafe are just myths. He says that 90% of farmers are very happy with growing GM foods and grow them year after year once they have tried them. He says that GM foods have had a direct impact on farmers by saving them money on pesticides and have never been any confirmed crop failures with GM foods. He says that GM foods are perfectly safe and any claims saying that they are not safe are false, GM foods have undergone more safety and environmental testing than any other crop varieties in history. He says that to this date there are no confirmed human or animal illnesses or diseases associated with GM foods. GM foods are just as safe as conventional crops or food.
I think this information from the person that works in the industry of GM foods has a valid argument, however it could be bias toward GM food because he works in the industry and wouldn’t want to say anything negative about it. I think it’s a valid source because this person has a lot of information on GM food and would know the benefits that it can have because he would have figures and feedback from farmers etc using their GM foods. So I think that this person has a lot of data and research to back up what he is saying.
The three sources that I have written about have said different things, some have wrote things that are for GM foods and some have wrote things that are against GM foods. Some are more valid than others because some don’t have the evidence to back up their claims. The anti-biotech organic food activists had a lot of negative things to say about GM foods and no positives, where as the person who works in the industry of GM foods had a lot of positive things to say about GM foods and the scientist had positive and negative things to say about GM foods.
The scientist and the person who works in the industry both argue that farmers will benefit from growing GM foods because they will save money on pesticides, and they both have proof to back up what they say, whereas the anti-biotech organic food activists say that GM foods failed to deliver the promised benefits to farmers. The person who works in industry has proof that 90% of farmers are happy with the results of GM food which proves the anti-activists wrong.
The anti-activists claim that GM foods are unsafe and could even trigger cancer or make infections hard to treat, but there is no proof that they are unsafe and the person who works in the industry claims that they are perfectly safe and that there has been no confirmed human or animal illness that has been associated with GM foods, and that GM food have undergone more safety testing than any other crop and is just as safe as conventional crops. I think that the anti-activists don’t have enough evidence to back this up and the person who works in industry does, so I think he has the stronger argument. The activists say that the herbicide used with GM foods are highly toxic to humans and animals and are expected to have a wide range of harmful effects, the person who works in industry says that there claims are totally false. Dr Liz Dennis thinks that GM food can improve your health and so does the person that works in the industry, these two people have a lot of evidence to back up their claims whereas the anti-activists don’t have any evidence, and they disagree about every thing that these two people say. Anti-activists say should not be taken seriously unless they show any evidence to back up what they say. However, I don’t think it is right to go ahead with GM foods without carrying out objective, impartial research. The activists may have a point, if we ignore it we may be venerable to a lot of problems in the future.
When I first started to research GM food, I didn’t think that they were that safe and I wasn’t really sure about them because I didn’t know much about them, but now that I have done a lot of research on it I believe that GM foods are worth the risk because the pluses are a lot better than the minuses. Dr Liz Dennis says that GM food can improve people’s health and dietary problems, this is because the Crops can be grown to contain vitamins and minerals or more of them which can improve people’s health. She says that it can solve world hunger because the crops can be grown to contain vitamins that are hard to get in some poor countries. She even says that some GM foods can be made to reduce cholesterol and people can even be immunized from measles or other diseases by eating bananas, but a lot of research has to be done before this can be carried out to prove that it can solve dietary problems and that there are no side effects. There are other reasons why this can’t be acted upon, because of money, where will the money come from to pay for sending the food to third world countries and growing it. I think the anti-activists are just saying things about GM food to put people off of eating them, they have no evidence to prove what they are saying. I think the issue seems to be bigger than who is going to profit from GM food, it is more to do with how many lives could be saved.
I got this information from
.
Biotech Food Myths, Misconceptions and Misnformation --A Response to False Activist Claims.
AgBioWorld.org.
