GMO stigma founded in unrealistic ideals

In Opinion

A 20-year study conducted by independent researchers has been circulating articles since the beginning of the year, aiding in anti-Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) advocates’ arguments.

The long-term study done by researchers from the University of Maryland and Benzon Research examined the strength certain genetically modified processes have on corn and cotton in defending against insects.

The article effectively brings about some concerns in the GMO field that point to the inevitable evolution of certain species and their ability to adapt to the resistances crops can be modified with.

While certain anti-GMO advocates will cite the study as an example for the futility of GMOs, the necessity and realistic applications of the modifications outweigh this one controlled instance.
The stigma glazed over GMOs is purely conceived by those misled by the notion that “organic is best.”

Even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is slowly getting on board as it recently passed the production of the very first genetically modified animal–salmon. One controversial stipulation to the modified organism, however, is that it would not need to be labeled as such, contrary to the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.

However, the FDA has been met with an enormous amount of criticism over the order and has halted production until an agreement has been met on the issue of labeling.

Those against this approval argue the fact that it not being labeled is wrong and the possibility of contamination is “considered a certainty,” according to realfarmacy.com, a health news site.

With 15 million households being considered “food insecure,” according to worldhunger.org. With that in mind, the need for GMOs will, at some point, conquer the need for some “organic-all-natural” miniature food that costs twice as much.

Not only do GMOs allow scientists to test the organism before it’s put out for the public, they can be modified so that pesticide proliferation can be reduced tremendously, according to a 2014 meta analysis funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development.

The study showed that chemical pesticide usage was lowered nearly 40 percent in GMOs.

With technology creating these miraculous opportunities for farmers and people around the world to eat, live and thrive, the negative connotations that GMOs are faced with should be dispelled as fast as the food they produce grows.

Though the isolated case of corn and cotton being susceptible to evolving insects is undeniably something that needs further research and prevention, it’s nothing to cancel the production of crops and foods for the world over.

Even peanuts are being tested to breed a new hypoallergenic version. This leads to a multitude of benefits like children with nut allergies not having to worry about having a reaction in school or being able to enjoy peanuts at baseball games.

And before the naysayers point out that it won’t taste like a peanut, take a minute and consider that around 92 percent of the corn we eat is genetically modified, along with 77 percent of papayas, 94 percent of soybeans and 95 percent of sugar beet crops, according to the USDA.

The solution should be found in proper research and understanding. It’s a bleak and morbid thing to realize; that the world is starving and the only real way to fix it is to engineer its resources to be bigger and better.

Despite the constant criticism of the unnatural aspect of GMOs, there is a clear need for them. Huge is the best way to go. It’s the American thing to do.

259 commentsOn GMO stigma founded in unrealistic ideals

  • I just don’t feel like scrolling through thousands of comments to find them, either do apparently.

  • Sure, aussie boy, they don’t exist. You made them up.

  • Only one of us has a job, while i am busy working feel free to scroll through thousands of comments little man .

  • Weak excuse, aussie boy, we know you never had them to begin with.

  • Do you have a job and if not why can’t you look for the posts your self little boy?

  • We can all see that you said “I have seen independent scientist’s on these forums debunk that study. It is a joke.”. We can all also see that you can’t name the scientists who you claim to have made that statement, aussie boy, you have showed yourself to be a liar once again.

    As always, you come up short.It must be such a frustration for you.

  • So no job?

    “I have seen independent scientist’s on these forums debunk that study. It is a joke.”

    I still stand by that.

  • It’s all bullshit unless you can name the scientists, aussie boy.

  • Little boy, if you don’t have a job then you have time to look through thousands of comments, if like me you are employed then you probably do not have the time.

    Little boy, I don’t care if you don’t believe my claims of independent scientists debunking that study, the study is a well known joke Little boy.

  • Also little boys should not swear

  • So now you are going to come up with more childish BS to try and cover the fact that you lied and have no scientists to disclose because you made it all up. I’m done with you.

  • It’s still all bullshit unless you can name the scientists, aussie boy.

  • Someones an angry little boy

  • I spoke the truth, you can believe me or not I do not care, but I am not going to waste my time proving to you that I am not lying, Little boy.

  • That is because you don’t have it. Thanks for proving to all that you are a liar again, aussie boy.

  • Your opinion of me does not worry me, you troll with 11 disqus accounts spreading lies, fear and rubbish research. Its pathetic and shows how weak and unfounded your arguments are, little boy.

  • Cletus DeBunkerman

    Do you have some proof for your claim?

    You look like a common troll to me.

  • Cletus, I haven’t heard from you in months, how have you been?

  • You are attempting to obfuscate the facts by bringing up issues that have nothing to do with the peer reviewed study recently published on the Nature website that shows Roundup/glyphosate causes fatty liver disease at 430,000 times lower concentrations than those allowed in the food supply.

    Most of us are well aware of the fact that you are and industry operative who is attempting to confuse and deceive readers about the actual facts.

Comments are closed.

Mobile Sliding Menu