Justified in their decision.

Justified in their decision.

AndrewHardingVCOM-CC 20 Mar 2018 13:37

GMO foods not only create solutions to problems, such as resistance to pests, droughts, low nutrient soils, and high temperatures. They may grow at a faster rate, produce more fruit which is sweeter than before. Ultimately the goal is to bring an end to world hunger and solve the problem of an ever growing population.

However, it does create some ethical and potential, but unlikely, environmental concerns, such as creating super weeds and being carcinogenic/teratogenic. It also raises ethical concerns which may be the most valid in comparison.

A country needs to decide whether or not they need this. There are second and third world countries that may be self sustaining in their farming; however, may be prone to natural disasters that would cripple the country by knocking out there farms. These would be great to have in storage given their ability to resist so many adverse growth conditions. It could also potentially hurt there farmers who choose not to partake in using GMO seeds, so could also cripple the economy this way, creating more supply than demand could warrant.

So, is a country justified in their decision in whether to import GMO seeds? I think this is a case by case decision and is something that the need to look at their own country and ask them selves, do I need this? Would we benefit from this in case there was natural disaster? If both answers are no, then obviously they do not need to import them, and they are justified in there ban. Otherwise, I think the simple decision would be to create more options.

"Its better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it."

Re: Justified in their decision.

JLineberryVCOM-VA 20 Mar 2018 18:59

You're so right in saying that natural disasters can really cripple the products. In this case, GMO would be particularly helpful. The produce would grow quickly, produce more, and have additional nutrients that are likely needed to be supplemented. This may allow the region to stave off the long term effects of the crops being destroyed. The countries would need to decide, as you said. I think the US has a tendency to tell countries what they need and impose our beliefs and resources on them. That is rarely (if ever) a good strategy. It may be more appropriate for each region to decide about the GMO. City areas and rural areas in developing countries have very different needs.

Re: Justified in their decision.

Michael Saggio 20 Mar 2018 21:48

I disagree on the point that a country can ban a product because of limited speculation that it could cause problem. Like you said, there is an "unlikely potential" for the development a "super weed" or newly created teratogen due to GMOs usage, and I would love to see some evidence that this is even a possibility. I think the basis would lie on the idea that bacteria or fungi or other microorganisms could transform genes coding for heat resistance or pest resistance to other microorganisms and eventually pass that along to a weed. However, given that these genes are not being created, simply taken and inserted from already existing plants, I don't think GMOs are creating a dangerous environment for the development of a superweed. I also don't think there is any evidence that swapping some genetics between plants increases the probability of transmission of genetics between existing plants, as the mechanisms for transmission already exist and are not being altered. Therefore, I don't think agree that these countries are justified in banning the products at all. I also agree with JLineberry in that GMO's would be particularly helpful in wake of natural disasters.