Week 7 Prompt Post: Contemplating Controversy

For Genetically Engineered Foods:

Those in favor for Genetically Engineered Foods support their reasoning through three main topics: health and safety, nutrition, and environment. To begin understanding their stance, let us first examine their platform for health and safety. The supporters claim that because federal regulatory agencies and laboratories test these foods, they pose zero threat to humans. Their modified shelf life is also seen as an advantage because it prevents the foods from rotting and spreading food poisoning. Looking at the nutrition aspect, GE food enthusiasts believe that the durability of these crops ultimately leads to an increase in the food supply and the waning of problems such as malnutrition and hunger. Contrary to popular belief, these foods are not limited solely to produce. Plants and animals can be engineered as well. This allows companies to create more sustenance in a smaller time period.  As for environment, the seeds of these crops can be engineered in various ways, leading to less dependency on natural resources. They can also be made so they repel pests, such as insect, illnesses, and weeds. Designing them to resist such conditions reduces the need for powerful pesticides that pollute the water supply.

Against Genetically Engineered Foods:

            The three key components of the opposing viewpoints are health and environmental risks, labeling, and patents. Addressing the first issue, those against GE foods predict that the products may have potentially harmful side effects. One of the concerns is that these plants and animals will unleash a new strain of diseases into the gene pool. This epidemic could create illnesses, pests, or weeds that are difficult to exterminate. Another process that makes these people weary is the labeling of these foods. Consumers believe that they should have the right to know whether their foods are genetically engineered or not. Because these labels are not required in many countries, it is challenging to make an educated purchase. The final argument against these modified products revolves around the patents companies place on their properties. Because GE foods are manufactured, developing countries have a growing dependency on industrialization for their food supply. These pricey items along with the patent laws could generate a monopoly within the world of food production.

The basic difference in these two contrasting opinions is the amount of caution each side posses. Those who support GE foods do not seem to take time in order to assess the consequences that these products may have. They have seen an opportunity and seized it full throttle. As for the opposing crowd, the carefulness may be too abundant. They seem to overanalyze every situation and spend more time on the “what ifs”. Both arguments are logical and well played, which leads me to ask: which side do you agree with?

Source:

"The Philosophy of Food Project." The Philosophy of Food Project. College of North Texas, 2013. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.