Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

V
Lv 4
V asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

if you support Genetically modified foods, why?

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    Neither:

    Advantages

    There are many advantages to genetically modified food. GM foods can be made to be resistant to many diseases, weeds, pests and herbicides. They can even be made to be drought or flood tolerant. They can grow faster and have more nutrients than other crops while not going bad as quickly. They are also cheaper for farmers as you don't need to use chemical sprays. These traits could be the solution to third world hunger. The crops in poorer countries wouldn't be destroyed so easily after every drought or flood. They would be able to grow faster and there would be more of them as they are resistant to pests. The crops would also be healthier for people because iron and other minerals can be added to them, removing malnutrition problems.

    Another advantage is that in the future, foods could be modified to make edible vaccines, like bananas that protect us against Hepatitius B. Edible vaccines would make large scale immunisations against diseases easier, painless and more accessible. Instead of waiting in line for a doctor you could eat a tomato.

    Disadvantages:

    Despite the many advantages to genetically modified foods there are also many disadvantages. First and foremost is that genetically modified foods are new and it is impossible to know all the future effects it could have on human health and the environment. The risks and benefits of new technologies are only fully known after they have been in use for many years. An example is nuclear power, forty years ago it was thought that t could solve all the worlds problems with unlimited, cheap and safe energy. Only now do we know the full benefits and risks of nuclear power.

    Another disadvantage is the potential impact it could have to human health. The new genes that are put in food could be resistant to certain antibiotics; if we eat them the effectiveness of antibiotics could be reduced. New allergens could be accidentally created and known allergens could be transferred to other foods. For example, if a gene from peanuts was taken and put in a tomato, people allergic to peanuts could be allergic to that tomato. Most importantly, scientists can't actually prove whether genetically modified foods are 100% safe because normal toxicology tests do not work for food.

    There are many environmental problems involving genetically modified foods. These are mainly about pollination of plants. If genetically modified plants pollinate non-genetically modified plants this could spread them into the wild, where they could compete with other plants. This would upset the balance of nature, as these plants could easily take over. Plants that are made resistant to chemical herbicides could pollinate with weeds. This would be disastrous because then new, stronger sprays would have to be developed to counter them. This would increase ground and water contamination, something genetically modified plants are supposed to prevent.

  • Erika
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    In a be conscious, sure. i'm a PhD candidate reading plant/pathogen interactions. I actual have assisted in designing quite a few plant lines that are considered GMO's and characteristic participated in debates approximately their protection. In an amlost universal consistent, the using rigidity in the back of the accepted public thought of GMO's is lack of understanding. I actual have tried to communicate with individuals of the Sierra club with regard to the technologies that is going into those products, even though it truly is no longer accessible because of the fact they have not have been given any thought what that's that we do. To many anti-GMO factions their basically argument is that nature knows ultimate. properly we've been changing nature because of the fact the break of day of agriculture, that's only now that we can impression those differences in a focused way. An previously placed up suggested using the 35S CaMV promoter, what number right here actual understand what it truly is? what number are assuming that because of the fact it comes from an epidemic it may be undesirable? The 35S promoter would not encode for any proteins, it facilitates to alter the cost of expression of the downstream gene. that's a constitutive promoter, meaning that that's continuously in an "on" state, and as such any protein it truly is linked with it might additionally be expressed to a extreme point. yet another previously placed up suggested that GMO's have decrease diet levels, that won't actual. if actuality be told quite a few GMO's have been engineered to supply greater levels of supplementations. For the main section the decreased micronutrient levels considered in cultivated produce may be traced to the growth situations of the flora. For the main section nutrition is harvested in the previous it has a great gamble to mature, and it "ripens" after harvest. This has enabled us to have strawberries in the wintry climate (between different issues), even though it additionally decreased the accepted high quality of the produce. in the previous youtake components in a depate, ask your self, "Do i actual understand the themes handy?". in case you won't be able to respond to sure, than it's time to teach your self. in this notice that's imporant to assemble information from the two components of the debate. Trusting Greenpeace to supply you the entire actuality approximately a controversy is particularly like trusting Monsanto. you ought to analyze the two components of an agrument. i will truly say that I understand genetic adjustments better than ninety 9.9% of the inhabitants, or perhaps i ought to envision my sources on occasion.

  • 1 decade ago

    sure, but i wouldn't eat it. People never forsee the unintended consequences of their actions. Silly humans

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.