argument top image

Are GMOs good or bad? Show more Show less
Back to question

GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are organisms (plants and animals) that have had specific genes from a different species inserted into its own DNA. This results in the crop having new desirable features. Examples include papayas that are virus-resistant or corn that is herbicide-resistant. Our food has been genetically modified since the first GMO tomato (Flvr Svr) in the early 1990s. The acceptance of GMOs has varied between countries; the United States, Argentina, and Canada have quickly adopted GMOs while the EU countries have passed stricter legislation. There is a heated debate over whether GMOs are good or bad for our health, environment, world hunger, and the economy.

GMOs are good Show more Show less

GMOs have been extensively tested and have been proven safe for people to eat. GMOs are also good for the public because they are good for the environment, can help address world hunger, and can be a solution for growing amidst climate change. GMOs also lower the price of food.
< (2 of 3) Next position >

GMOs can help address world hunger

GMOs can address world hunger by adding nutrients to food, being disease resistant, producing higher yields, growing in severe weather conditions, and being able to be transported farther to those in need.

The Argument

GMOs have modifications that can help address world hunger. First, GMOs can add important nutrients to food. One prominent example of this is Golden Rice, which is modified rice that is vitamin A enhanced.[1] Other modifications are to increase yield and create disease resistance. There are also modifications to help crops grow faster and tolerate environmental stressors, which means that the crops can grow in non-ideal farming areas such as those that suffer droughts. All of these modifications can help people grow enough food across the world despite the climate crisis. Modifications can also help crops stay fresh longer, which means they can be transported farther to areas in need. These factors mean that GMOs could be the answer to addressing world hunger with an ever-growing population. They could help us navigate how to grow with the challenges of climate change.

Counter arguments

This argument is predicated on the notion that world hunger is a result of a lack of food. That is incorrect. According to the World Food Programme, the world produces enough food to feed the entire global population more than 2,000 calories a day. The problem isn’t a lack of food; it is a lack of purchasing power. In areas of famine, you can actually have food being exported because the people there don’t have the purchasing power to buy the food.[2]

Proponents

Premises

[P1] GMOs can add nutrients to food. [P2] GMOs can be grown under challenging circumstances such as drought and can be transported farther. [P3] These traits could be used to address world hunger.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] GMOs won't help address world hunger because it isn't caused by a lack of food, but by a lack of purchasing power.

References

  1. http://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2018.1431301
  2. https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/18/8056163/bill-gates-gmo-farming-world-hunger-africa-poverty

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more ↑

Discuss

This page was last edited on Sunday, 13 Sep 2020 at 16:54 UTC

Explore related arguments