Genetic engineering of food elicits mixed reactions from those on either side of the debate. A close examination of genetic engineering of food reveals the fact that this dangerous technology poses serious risks to the environment, human health and the overarching economy. Topic Sentence 1 BODY PARA 1 Engineering of food, first and foremost, can cause harm to the environment. Pollen grains from genetically modified maize kill the larvae of the monarch butterfly (Thomson, & Harrison, 2003, p. 24).
The Indiscriminate killing of Insects underlines the environmental unfriendliness of genetic engineering of food crops. Similarly, the use of herbicides results in the indiscriminate killing of plants. Therefore, this technology clearly undermines biodiversity (Pseudonymous, 2006, p. 72). In adopting this technology we would have to be prepared for enormous technological challenges. Crops designed to resist pesticides would soon see their effectiveness decrease. An appropriate comparison would be mosquito resistance to EDT. In addition, weeds exposed to herbicides would soon become resistant.
This would create unnecessary complications that would require repeated modification of the crops (Thomson, Dickson & Harrison, 2003, p. 34). Topic Sentence 2 BODY PARA 2 Genetically modified foods also bring serious adverse effects to human health. Mostly, consumers of these foods would suffer from allergies and gastrointestinal complications (Pseudonymous, 2006, p. 72). Genetic engineering of food involves the inclusion of the genes of organisms that are not part of the human food chain (Pseudonymous, 2006, p. 81). The adoption of this technology would not solve poverty in the world.
Instead, the technology widens the gap between the rich and the poor. This is because of the high costs associated with acquiring the inputs required in adopting genetic engineering. BODY PARA 3 Concession Opposing Point Supporters of genetic engineering of food, such as Nina Fedora (201 1), believe that contends that genetic engineering comes at an appropriate time, when climatic changes are common phenomena in the world. To sustain the expanding world population, Fedora and other supporters of the technology believe that the world should turn to adopting genetically modified food.
Central to this appeal is that engineering of food increases productivity and reduces costs of production. Farmers who have adopted the technology have reported increased yields of “as much as 10 times” (“Engineering Food for All,” 2011). In addition, the technology is environmentally friendly. Using herbicides reduces the tendency of tilling land. She adds that as a result, it “decreases soil erosion and shrinks the agricultural foot print. ” Directly linked – can actually be looked at as a single paragraph but these have been separated for purpose of neatness / presentation Refutation
BODY PARA 4 However, these claims by the supporters of genetic engineering of food are unrealistic. To begin with, genetic engineering of food is not environmentally friendly considering its impact on ecosystems. Secondly, it does not reduce the costs of production in agriculture. With patents in mind, the costs of the inputs in undertaking genetically engineering of foods are certain to be exorbitant. In the long run, reliance on this technology may result in the need for newer technologies to address emergent challenges. Body 5 & 6 are only optional.
Essentially, ONE opposing point + concession + refutation would suffice. (Body 5 merely presents an additional opposing point) BODY PARA 5 In addition, those supporting genetic engineering of food contend that it is safe for human consumption. There is indeed some truth to this claim as has been pointed out in “Engineering Food for All,” (201 1), in which Fedora rubbishes claims that there are significant dangers associated with genetically modified foods. Quoting from some research, she contends that products of this technology are “no more dangerous than crop modification by other methods.