genetically modified food

The reading states that the genetically modified food offers certain benefits. However, the professor argues that the benefits are not clear and opposes each benefit mentioned in the reading.

First, the article posits that through genetic modification, researchers can produce better crops with attributes that would take centuries to produce in any other way. On the other hand, the lecture claims that the food does not necessarily produce as expected. Genetic changes take hundreds of years in nature. As a result, the crops are tested over large spans of time in a variety of conditions. Researcher simply cannot produce better and stable crops as nature.

Second, the author claims that genetically modified foods are safe. Contractedly, the lecture says safety is still a question. The professor says safety of the food is based on the data available through peer review. In reality, a Manufacture company rarely publishes their safety data for peer review. They are unlikely to publish data because of the fear of their opponents to copy it. There is no data out-there to do peer reviews, so without it safety is not testified.

Third, the reading states that genetic modification creates crops that underdeveloped countries can use to alleviate food shortage and avoid famine. However, the lecture opposes this point by saying that genetically modified food helps to grow more crops with less water, but the food shortage is due to lack of infrastructure to distribute foods to the needed one. The developing company’s relies on their food revenue. Even thought, their high-selling food, it is not helpful to solve the food storage and famine.