Can Genetically Modified Crops End World Hunger?
Slate Magazine says: Maybe. As much as companies like Monsanto and Syngenta might position themselves as the solution to the global food crisis, Slate claims that they would have to significantly change the way they operate first.
The article gives the GM industry some specific suggestions for policy change, such as no longer requiring poor farmers to buy new seeds every year, as well as increasing investment in nutritious, easy-to-grow crops like cassava, sorghum, millet, and chickpeas. Slate also urges GM companies to be more honest about the amount of time, energy, and technological development that will be necessary to achieve the kind of crop yields they're promising. Finally, the article proposes that GM companies adopt a more open attitude towards public concerns, whether that means supporting studies on long-term health effects of GM crops or allowing food companies to market food as "GM free."
Related
GMOs Slipping Through the Cracks
To GMO, or Not to GMO?
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
6 Comments:
Anyone who thinks that Monsanto may actually do any of those things hasn't been paying much attention to Monsanto.
Buckethead at 3:00PM on 08/12/08
SAY NO TO GMO... even though due to the lack of secure agricultural methods, none of our food is completely GMO free now... Lots of crossbeeding going on out there...
Oh... and Down With Monsanto!
ronzoni at 3:27PM on 08/12/08
Nobody has any idea what GMO foods will do to our bodies over time - experiments on lab animals have had some scary results though. GMO is good for the corporations holding the GM patents, and that is all. Introducing foreign, unnatural organisms into our ecosystems has the potential to cause apocalyptic damage to crops and other living things - it's not worth the potential short-term gain.
producestories at 3:39PM on 08/12/08
GM foods do not have a higher yield than organic. Don't believe the hype. Learn more about Monsanto.
ExpatChef at 4:31PM on 08/12/08
I'm happy to see i'm not the only Serious Eater who gets nervous about GMOs.
I hear plenty of horrible things about Monsanto, and GMO crops doing funny things to your body. what scares me even more is the idea of losing multiple strains of crops, because Monsanto or whoever gets there wish and has every farmer on earth growing their stuff. the fewer types of strains of wheat/ chickpeas/ millet/corn/whatever there are, the more likely an insect infestation, fungal infection, or crop failure can devestate entire countries, not the just the handful of farmers growing that strain that year.
for me, GMO = scary!
redhead at 8:58PM on 08/12/08
The problem with any pro- or con- GM discussion is that it seems impossible to have a rational discussion.
The con- group usually is dominated by "anything I don't personally understand is scary, and scary should be banned", or requirements for any potential GM product to meet an impossible level of perceived safety before use. If new drugs had to meet the standard the non-GM people set as acceptable there'd be less starving people, they'd have died from any number of diseases by now.
The pro- group is often dominated by those with a vested interest. This may be since it's not politically correct to side with a big corporation, regardless of the topic.
Could GM crops end world hunger? Probably not, as lack of water, poor sanitation and spotty transporation are such big contributors to the problem. Also, the poor and starving don't necessarily have the money that would help the big businesses pay for the R&D.
IdeaRat at 11:43PM on 08/12/08