Pros And Cons Of Gmo's And Food Security

GMO’s and Food Security (Positive Implications) For this section, I would like to present the opportunities that pro-GMOs usually point out. These benefits are the arguments that answer the question, how do GMOs contribute to food security? The following positive implications of GMOs are gathered from the works of Lamichhane (2014), Kruft (2001), Azadi and Ho (2010), Whitman (2000), and Bernsten (2004); however categorization of the arguments was made for the purpose of this paper.

Increase Crop Yield Productions

The premise that shortages of food root from the problems of food production with continuously growing population is probably where the benefits of GMOs come in. GM crops are often considered as the solution to yield deficits. It

Direct benefits come from improving the nutritional content of foods and from reducing toxic compounds and allergens applied to the crops. Indirect health benefits on the other hand are those that come from the reduced use of pesticide, the diminished damages that insect or disease can cause to the crops, increased number of affordable food, and the removal of toxic compounds from soil. However, the FAO claimed that these direct and indirect benefits should be further examined (FAO,

Replacing small but efficient farms with an industrialized agribusiness under multi-national corporations can be one of the disadvantages brought by GMOs. Such corporations are supposed to increase production of foods, increase the efficiency of how foods are produced, improve the economic situation of farmers and improve patterns of food consumption. However, most evidences are contrary to these assumptions.

GMO may have increased productivity and crop yield but the question is that, does the yield really go to the hungry? It may have reduced the production costs and the prices of commodities for the consumer but we should consider who really is gaining? Is it really the poor farmers, the consumers or the capitalistic companies? “Biotechnology is a technology under corporate control, protected by patents and other forms of IPR, and therefore contrary to farming traditions of saving and exchanging seeds” (Altieri 2002). Kruft (2001) added in his list of concerns that GMOs offer the possible effects on small-scale farmers. The dominance of private companies to agricultural lands negatively impacts small-scale farmers all over the world. Farmers have limited rights to retain and reuse plant materials, lose access to land and other resources as well as to the profit