Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
group_4_presentation_1_-_genetically_modified_organism_s [2016/09/30 04:03] hongjj |
group_4_presentation_1_-_genetically_modified_organism_s [2018/01/25 15:18] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Genetically Modified Organisms ====== | ====== Genetically Modified Organisms ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{:presentation_1-_gmos.pdf|}} | ||
| Line 110: | Line 112: | ||
| "Gluten sensitivity can range in severity from mild discomfort, such as gas and bloating, to celiac disease, a serious autoimmune condition that can, if undiagnosed, result in a 4-fold increase in death," said Jeffrey M. Smith, executive director of IRT. | "Gluten sensitivity can range in severity from mild discomfort, such as gas and bloating, to celiac disease, a serious autoimmune condition that can, if undiagnosed, result in a 4-fold increase in death," said Jeffrey M. Smith, executive director of IRT. | ||
| - | The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more (23). | + | The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more (26). |
| In soy, corn, canola oil, zucchini, yellow squash, Hawaiian papaya, and alfalfa, "Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related disorders," according to Smith. | In soy, corn, canola oil, zucchini, yellow squash, Hawaiian papaya, and alfalfa, "Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related disorders," according to Smith. | ||
| Line 120: | Line 122: | ||
| * Damage to the Intestinal Wall | * Damage to the Intestinal Wall | ||
| - | IRT has also released a statement that glyphosate, a pesticide was found to have a negative effect on intestinal bacteria. Unfortunately, GMO crops contain high concentrations of this toxin during harvest and consumption by humans (23). | + | IRT has also released a statement that glyphosate, a pesticide was found to have a negative effect on intestinal bacteria. Unfortunately, GMO crops contain high concentrations of this toxin during harvest and consumption by humans (26). |
| - | With these symptoms, Dr. Tom O'Bryan, with his expertise on gluten sensitivity and Celiac Disease stated that "the introduction of GMOs is highly suspect as a candidate to explain the rapid rise in gluten-related disorders over the last 17 years" (23). | + | With these symptoms, Dr. Tom O'Bryan, with his expertise on gluten sensitivity and Celiac Disease stated that "the introduction of GMOs is highly suspect as a candidate to explain the rapid rise in gluten-related disorders over the last 17 years" (26). |
| Line 131: | Line 133: | ||
| - | In a study published and peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS) in 2013, researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism. (26) | + | In a study published and peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS) in 2013, researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism (30). |
| - | In one of the blood samples taken from the subjects, relative concentrations of plant DNA was significantly higher than human DNA. Sample size was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four different independent studies (26). | + | In one of the blood samples taken from the subjects, relative concentrations of plant DNA was significantly higher than human DNA. Sample size was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four different independent studies (30). |
| - | “Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system" (26). | + | “Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system" (30). |
| As the process of digestion occurs, proteins and DNA are recognized to be degraded into smaller counterparts, which are amino acids and nucleic acids respectively. This is then absorbed through an active process and subsequently distributed to various regions of the body using the circulatory system. Results from the study have shown that the plant DNA concentration displayed a precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma control sample was found to be free of it. According to the demonstration of the study's results, this implies that these meal-derived DNA fragments are large enough to carry complete genes that can avoid degradation through an unknown mechanism to enter the human circulatory system. | As the process of digestion occurs, proteins and DNA are recognized to be degraded into smaller counterparts, which are amino acids and nucleic acids respectively. This is then absorbed through an active process and subsequently distributed to various regions of the body using the circulatory system. Results from the study have shown that the plant DNA concentration displayed a precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma control sample was found to be free of it. According to the demonstration of the study's results, this implies that these meal-derived DNA fragments are large enough to carry complete genes that can avoid degradation through an unknown mechanism to enter the human circulatory system. | ||
| Line 147: | Line 149: | ||
| ** | ** | ||
| - | Genetically modified insect-resistant plants have the potential for reducing usage of pesticides (33). After the adoption of genetically modified crops in the 1990s, there was a reduction in approximate 8.22 million pounds of pesticides used within the first year of usage (29). Reducing amounts of pesticides in the environment can benefit the environment in multiple ways. There has been increasing amounts of evidence regarding the hazards that pesticides pose to the environment. Specifically, pesticides have the ability to contaminate soil, ground water and other vegetation present (1). A study done by the U.S Geological Survey across multiple river basins in the United States found that greater than 90% of water and fish samples tested from these bodies of water contained one or more pesticides (13). Furthermore, this study revealed that levels of pesticides present in most urban streams exceeded the recommended guidelines that were created to protect aquatic wildlife from harm (31). The trend noticed within the first few years after the adoption of genetically modified crops has been encouraging as it has shown an overall reduction of pesticides used (33). | + | Genetically modified insect-resistant plants have the potential for reducing usage of pesticides (37). After the adoption of genetically modified crops in the 1990s, there was a reduction in approximate 8.22 million pounds of pesticides used within the first year of usage (33). Reducing amounts of pesticides in the environment can benefit the environment in multiple ways. There has been increasing amounts of evidence regarding the hazards that pesticides pose to the environment. Specifically, pesticides have the ability to contaminate soil, ground water and other vegetation present (1). A study done by the U.S Geological Survey across multiple river basins in the United States found that greater than 90% of water and fish samples tested from these bodies of water contained one or more pesticides (15). Furthermore, this study revealed that levels of pesticides present in most urban streams exceeded the recommended guidelines that were created to protect aquatic wildlife from harm (35). The trend noticed within the first few years after the adoption of genetically modified crops has been encouraging as it has shown an overall reduction of pesticides used (37). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:impacts_of_gm_corn_and_cotton_on_insecticide_use.png|}} </box| Figure 7: After the adoption of genetically modification corn and cotton in the last 1990’s the USDA recorded a rapid decline in the usage of insecticides (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014)> | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:impacts_of_gm_corn_and_cotton_on_insecticide_use.png|}} </box| Figure 7: After the adoption of genetically modification corn and cotton in the last 1990’s the USDA recorded a rapid decline in the usage of insecticides (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014)> | ||
| Line 155: | Line 157: | ||
| ** | ** | ||
| - | Genetically modified crops have the potential to improve crop yield in developing countries, such as Southeast Asia and Africa, which stand to most to gain since agricultural output is limited (33). The current majority of genetically modified crops have traits that infer resistance of insects and herbicides (11). Bt corn, which is a genetically modified crop, which produces the toxin bacillus thuringiensis, has been widely used since its approval in 2002 (21). Data obtained from 2001 trials of 157 farms using Bt and non-Bt corn in India showed average yields of Bt- hybrids was 80-87% higher. These genetically modified crops in developing areas have a great potential. Farmers in these areas have limited accessibility to insecticides and other chemical alternatives. Additionally, due to tropical and subtropical weather climates, these areas experience the most pest pressure. | + | Genetically modified crops have the potential to improve crop yield in developing countries, such as Southeast Asia and Africa, which stand to most to gain since agricultural output is limited (37). The current majority of genetically modified crops have traits that infer resistance of insects and herbicides (12). Bt corn, which is a genetically modified crop, which produces the toxin bacillus thuringiensis, has been widely used since its approval in 2002 (24). Data obtained from 2001 trials of 157 farms using Bt and non-Bt corn in India showed average yields of Bt- hybrids was 80-87% higher. These genetically modified crops in developing areas have a great potential. Farmers in these areas have limited accessibility to insecticides and other chemical alternatives. Additionally, due to tropical and subtropical weather climates, these areas experience the most pest pressure (20). The hypothesis that these crops can improve crop yield was tested by field-trial results from India, which experience conditions similar to Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia (10). Overall, an increase in crop yield has the potential for preservation of natural habitats since less land will need to be converted into agricultural use in the future, thus promoting land and habitat conservation (37). |
| - | (18). The hypothesis that these crops can improve crop yield was tested by field-trial results from India, which experience conditions similar to Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia (9). Overall, an increase in crop yield has the potential for preservation of natural habitats since less land will need to be converted into agricultural use in the future, thus promoting land and habitat conservation (33). | + | |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:projected_yields_of_insect-resistant_gm_crops.png|}}</box| Figure 8: Projected Yields of insect-resistant genetically modified crops based on field-trials in India. Assessments of pest pressures, use of chemical alternatives and expected yields were evaluated (Qiam and Zilberman, 2003)> | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:projected_yields_of_insect-resistant_gm_crops.png|}}</box| Figure 8: Projected Yields of insect-resistant genetically modified crops based on field-trials in India. Assessments of pest pressures, use of chemical alternatives and expected yields were evaluated (Qiam and Zilberman, 2003)> | ||
| Line 166: | Line 167: | ||
| Two main ways genetically modified crops can improve soil integrity and conservation is through phytoremediation and promoting no-till weed management. | Two main ways genetically modified crops can improve soil integrity and conservation is through phytoremediation and promoting no-till weed management. | ||
| - | Some genetically modified plants have the ability to provide in situ remediation of polluted soil, sediments and surface waters (33). These plants overexpress metabolism enzymes and are able to remove organic pollutants, included herbicides and insecticides commonly found in soils. An enzyme that is regularly selected for is Chytochrome P450, which is typically involved in the metabolism of herbicides in mammalian livers (8). Through phytoremediation, absorbed pollutants are able to be converted into non-toxic metabolites and accumulate in the plants or be released back into the soil. This has been proven to both a sustainable and effective technology (24). Plants that have this ability must themselves be resistant to the pollutants being removed as well as have a large biomass so they can remediate large amounts of chemicals. Positive implications for the environment include decreased levels of pollutants in soil and less need for harmful and costly physical or chemical remediation processes (33). | + | Some genetically modified plants have the ability to provide in situ remediation of polluted soil, sediments and surface waters (37). These plants overexpress metabolism enzymes and are able to remove organic pollutants, included herbicides and insecticides commonly found in soils. An enzyme that is regularly selected for is Chytochrome P450, which is typically involved in the metabolism of herbicides in mammalian livers (9). Through phytoremediation, absorbed pollutants are able to be converted into non-toxic metabolites and accumulate in the plants or be released back into the soil. This has been proven to both a sustainable and effective technology (27). Plants that have this ability must themselves be resistant to the pollutants being removed as well as have a large biomass so they can remediate large amounts of chemicals. Positive implications for the environment include decreased levels of pollutants in soil and less need for harmful and costly physical or chemical remediation processes (37). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:phytoremediation.png|}}</box| Figure 9. Retrieved from: http://systemsbiology.usm.edu/BrachyWRKY/WRKY/Phytoremediation.html> | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:phytoremediation.png|}}</box| Figure 9. Retrieved from: http://systemsbiology.usm.edu/BrachyWRKY/WRKY/Phytoremediation.html> | ||
| - | Increased usage of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and resistant crops can lead to environmental benefits by facilitating a shift towards conservation tillage practices. These crops allow farmers to apply herbicides to crops after they emerge, since now these genetically modified crops can tolerate them (33). Post-emergent weed control encourages the use of soil-friendly weed control mechanisms that promote conservation of the land. Now farmers will not need to rely on tilling, which is a mechanism of mechanical weed control. Due to the rough nature of this process, tilling causes degradation of topsoil and overall soil moisture as well as leads to soil erosion (25). By using herbicide-resistant plants, farmers will now benefit from improved soil quality due to the change from tilling to light-chemical and no-till weed control mechanisms (5). | + | Increased usage of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and resistant crops can lead to environmental benefits by facilitating a shift towards conservation tillage practices. These crops allow farmers to apply herbicides to crops after they emerge, since now these genetically modified crops can tolerate them (37). Post-emergent weed control encourages the use of soil-friendly weed control mechanisms that promote conservation of the land. Now farmers will not need to rely on tilling, which is a mechanism of mechanical weed control. Due to the rough nature of this process, tilling causes degradation of topsoil and overall soil moisture as well as leads to soil erosion (28). By using herbicide-resistant plants, farmers will now benefit from improved soil quality due to the change from tilling to light-chemical and no-till weed control mechanisms (6). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:tilling.png|}}</box| Figure 10: Tilling eroding the top layer of soil. | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:tilling.png|}}</box| Figure 10: Tilling eroding the top layer of soil. | ||
| Line 180: | Line 181: | ||
| - | There are many concerns about the release of genetically modified organisms into the wild. The major fear is that they would become invasive species. An invasive species is a non-native species that was introduced into an ecosystem, and causes (directly or indirectly) the degradation of the natural function and structure of the ecosystem. The modifications to these organisms, whether they are crops or animals, often give them an advantage in their environment; allowing them to succeed when the native species may not (33). | + | There are many concerns about the release of genetically modified organisms into the wild. The major fear is that they would become invasive species. An invasive species is a non-native species that was introduced into an ecosystem, and causes (directly or indirectly) the degradation of the natural function and structure of the ecosystem. The modifications to these organisms, whether they are crops or animals, often give them an advantage in their environment; allowing them to succeed when the native species may not (37). |
| - | For example, GM Altantic salmon are made to be bigger at a younger age, which could give them a significant advantage if they escaped to the wild. Since they are larger, the transgenic fish feed longer than the smaller wild salmon, and ultimately can outcompete for the food supply (Benfey, 2014). | + | For example, GM Altantic salmon are made to be bigger at a younger age, which could give them a significant advantage if they escaped to the wild. Since they are larger, the transgenic fish feed longer than the smaller wild salmon, and ultimately can outcompete for the food supply (4). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:amanda.jpg|}}</box| Figure 11: GM salmon compared to Farm salmon. | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:amanda.jpg|}}</box| Figure 11: GM salmon compared to Farm salmon. | ||
| Line 191: | Line 192: | ||
| - | Gene flow is a great environmental risk when it comes to GMOs. This is where transgenes in the modified organism could transfer to wild species, soil bacteria (horizontal gene flow) or even humans. Gene flow occurs naturally within different species of plants, but there is a threat of transfer of undesirable genes into the pool, and populations could permanently change (Pretty, J. 2001). | + | Gene flow is a great environmental risk when it comes to GMOs. This is where transgenes in the modified organism could transfer to wild species, soil bacteria (horizontal gene flow) or even humans. Gene flow occurs naturally within different species of plants, but there is a threat of transfer of undesirable genes into the pool, and populations could permanently change (23). |
| - | It was shown in a Canadian study that GM Atlantic salmon were able to breed with natural-born salmon, and with closely related brown trout. They observed that the offspring were viable, which means they transferred their manipulated genes into the wild populations (spath). | + | It was shown in a Canadian study that GM Atlantic salmon were able to breed with natural-born salmon, and with closely related brown trout. They observed that the offspring were viable, which means they transferred their manipulated genes into the wild populations (29). |
| - | We can assume that gene flow will occur between GMOs and native species, but what is more concerning is the extent at which this will affect the native ecosystem (Pretty, 2001). Johnson (2000) said, ‘To add genes from other plants unwittingly and randomly to native gene pools may result in phenotypic effects which could change the way entire genomes relate to their physical and biotic environments’. The release or escape of genetically modified plants and animals should be avoided since it is difficult to predict the effect they may have on native species and ecosystems (Benfey, 2014). | + | We can assume that gene flow will occur between GMOs and native species, but what is more concerning is the extent at which this will affect the native ecosystem (23). Johnson (2000) said, ‘To add genes from other plants unwittingly and randomly to native gene pools may result in phenotypic effects which could change the way entire genomes relate to their physical and biotic environments’. The release or escape of genetically modified plants and animals should be avoided since it is difficult to predict the effect they may have on native species and ecosystems (4). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:gene_transfer_from_gm_crops_to_their_wild_relative.jpg|}}</box|Figure 12: Gene transfer from GM crops to their Wild Relative. | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:gene_transfer_from_gm_crops_to_their_wild_relative.jpg|}}</box|Figure 12: Gene transfer from GM crops to their Wild Relative. | ||
| Line 202: | Line 203: | ||
| - | There are several different ways in which GM crops can impact non-target insects. A prevalent example in the public has been the monarch butterfly, and is considered a species of conservational value (Hails, 2000). In a lab study, Monarch larvae on milkweed leaves were dusted with Bt maize pollen and left to grow. It was found that the larvae with BT pollen ate less, grew slower and experienced higher mortality compared to the larvae cultivated with non-GM pollen. It is still difficult to measure the effect of Bt pollen on monarchs in the wild due to many natural factors, including; the required dosage of pollen, the likelihood of exposure to pollen, and the effect of degradation of Bt from rain (Wolfenbarger L., Phifer P.R. 2007). | + | There are several different ways in which GM crops can impact non-target insects. A prevalent example in the public has been the monarch butterfly and is considered a species of conservational value. In a lab study, Monarch larvae on milkweed leaves were dusted with Bt maize pollen and left to grow. It was found that the larvae with BT pollen ate less, grew slower and experienced higher mortality compared to the larvae cultivated with non-GM pollen. It is still difficult to measure the effect of Bt pollen on monarchs in the wild due to many natural factors, including; the required dosage of pollen, the likelihood of exposure to pollen, and the effect of degradation of Bt from rain (37). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:monarch_butterfly_on_milkweed.jpg|}}</box| Figure 13: Monarch Butterfly on Milkweed. | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:monarch_butterfly_on_milkweed.jpg|}}</box| Figure 13: Monarch Butterfly on Milkweed. | ||
| Line 211: | Line 212: | ||
| **Public Opinion** | **Public Opinion** | ||
| - | According to Langer, G., 2016, over 90% of Americans, want to know if their food is a GMO . Over half of this population would avoid the food because they are either unsure about it or believe it to be unsafe (Langer, G., 2016). Many cultures benefit from GMO because for example they now have the ability to farm in environments that were previously too volatile. Parents, consisting largely of mothers, are against GMOs due to worry of genetic transfer and fetal harm (Langer, G., 2016). Scientists largely remain supportive and say that the public do not have all of the information. Scientists say that many have minimal understanding about what these products actually are, and their effects on the body or environment (Jaenisch, R. & Mintz, B.,1974). There are also organisations like Chipotle, a popular American burrito restaurant, that influences public opinion. In 2013 Chipotle chose to disclose which menu items were genetically modified, and later took them off their menu entirely (Jaenisch, R. & Mintz, B.,1974). This fuelled the public’s wariness of GMOs. Part of the problem with the lack of GMO awareness is due to Monsanto, a leader in GMO development and biotechnology, who failed to educate the public on the costs and benefits of GMOs from the early stages of production (Jaenisch, R. & Mintz, B.,1974). This resulted in a lot of fear and speculation and now Monsanto is stuck trying to quell this fear instead of educating consumers. Recently they have started attending public events to speak about GMO safety and help improve the public’s opinion. They had over 40 planned events in 2015 alone (Jaenisch, R. & Mintz, B.,1974). | + | According to Langer, G., 2016, over 90% of Americans, want to know if their food is a GMO . Over half of this population would avoid the food because they are either unsure about it or believe it to be unsafe (17). Many cultures benefit from GMO because for example they now have the ability to farm in environments that were previously too volatile. Parents, consisting largely of mothers, are against GMOs due to worry of genetic transfer and fetal harm (17). Scientists largely remain supportive and say that the public do not have all of the information. Scientists say that many have minimal understanding about what these products actually are, and their effects on the body or environment (11). There are also organisations like Chipotle, a popular American burrito restaurant, that influences public opinion. In 2013 Chipotle chose to disclose which menu items were genetically modified, and later took them off their menu entirely (11). This fuelled the public’s wariness of GMOs. Part of the problem with the lack of GMO awareness is due to Monsanto, a leader in GMO development and biotechnology, who failed to educate the public on the costs and benefits of GMOs from the early stages of production (11). This resulted in a lot of fear and speculation and now Monsanto is stuck trying to quell this fear instead of educating consumers. Recently they have started attending public events to speak about GMO safety and help improve the public’s opinion. They had over 40 planned events in 2015 alone (11). |
| Line 218: | Line 219: | ||
| Scientists can continue to develop ways to make GMOs safer for the ecosystem and people. The ultimate goal is to make the technology more accepted by the public, something that could be obtained from education initiatives. A large setback to GM technology is its environmental effects; therefore addressing this problem will solve many issues. There should be efforts made for example, to refine what a plant resistant to pests secretes so that it targets only the pest and not other organisms (see details on monarch butterfly). Companies can also aim to increase types of pharmaceuticals they are pharming in genetically modified organisms to decrease the need to produce it by other means. | Scientists can continue to develop ways to make GMOs safer for the ecosystem and people. The ultimate goal is to make the technology more accepted by the public, something that could be obtained from education initiatives. A large setback to GM technology is its environmental effects; therefore addressing this problem will solve many issues. There should be efforts made for example, to refine what a plant resistant to pests secretes so that it targets only the pest and not other organisms (see details on monarch butterfly). Companies can also aim to increase types of pharmaceuticals they are pharming in genetically modified organisms to decrease the need to produce it by other means. | ||
| - | Overall the process can be streamlined to allow for easier and more effective relocation of genes. Finally, if these things can be implemented successfully this will allow more food to reach different areas. Perhaps countries that must import a variety of food items could begin to grow them on their own instead. This would allow them to be more self sufficient and cut down on the environmental strain of transporting food from other countries. | + | Overall the process can be streamlined to allow for easier and more effective relocation of genes. Finally, if these things can be implemented successfully this will allow more food to reach different areas. Perhaps countries that must import a variety of food items could begin to grow them on their own instead. This would allow them to be more self-sufficient and cut down on the environmental strain of transporting food from other countries. |
| Line 225: | Line 226: | ||
| Controversy is mainly surrounding health and environmental risk factors of GMOs. This includes factors that are known and unknown due to lack of research. Rumours and stigmas about GMOs that are portrayed by the media are often results from scientific papers that have been exaggerated. | Controversy is mainly surrounding health and environmental risk factors of GMOs. This includes factors that are known and unknown due to lack of research. Rumours and stigmas about GMOs that are portrayed by the media are often results from scientific papers that have been exaggerated. | ||
| - | The USA does not currently have labelling laws for GM food (Rangel, G., 2015). It remains to be decided if labelling GM products is good or bad. On one hand, labelling something as GMO makes the consumer more aware but means that less will buy the product (as mentioned in Public Opinions). This results in increased food market prices and resource strain as companies attempt to satisfy the demand for non-GMOs. | + | The USA does not currently have labelling laws for GM food (25). It remains to be decided if labelling GM products is good or bad. On one hand, labelling something as GMO makes the consumer more aware but means that less will buy the product (as mentioned in Public Opinions). This results in increased food market prices and resource strain as companies attempt to satisfy the demand for non-GMOs. |
| - | By 2050 the UN predicts that humans will need to produce 70% more food than we currently do now in 2016 (Northoff, E., 2016). This increase in food production alone will strain resources, and GMOs have the potential to help by providing food with more nutrients, the ability to grow in harsh climates and many other altercations that could be a solution to our growing population’s food demands. | + | By 2050 the UN predicts that humans will need to produce 70% more food than we currently do now in 2016 (19). This increase in food production alone will strain resources, and GMOs have the potential to help by providing food with more nutrients, the ability to grow in harsh climates and many other altercations that could be a solution to our growing population’s food demands. |
| The question remains, is a world without GMOs sustainable? | The question remains, is a world without GMOs sustainable? | ||
