Biotechnology Number 2

I feel that biotechnology is the way of 21st century agriculture. If people plan on proliferating at this extreme rate, biotechnology transfers from convenience to necessity. Biotech not only increases framers profit margins, but it provides enough food for a hungry world. But the many positive affects of biotechnology do not exist without their obverse affects.

The Green Revolution is responsible for the survival of millions of people who would of otherwise starved. The rate of farm productivity due to farming practices is still increasing, but has slowed. The world needs a new advance in agriculture to boost its productivity to match the ever-growing population. Biotechnology, also known as the 'gene revolution' is this much needed advance. With the technology of today, we can make the plants themselves more productive, not just the land. Biotechnology can make the plants produce more grain or fruit, produce anti-insect toxins, produce increased resistance to pesticides and fertilizers, and even produce medicine. This increase in productivity has lead to increase in food and profit margin.

But a negative shadow looms over biotechnology 's bright future. With the manipulating of genes comes many moral and health issues. Is changing the blueprints of life right? Can it harm us? Will it cause cancer 10 years down the road? All are valid questions yet to be answered. The United States values productivity, while other countries or bands of countries like the European Union value the safety of their food supply. The European Union requires that all of their grains must be properly labeled if containing genetically modified organisms. The United States on the other hand, has found no health issues with genetically modified organisms, so requires no such labeling. This does create discrepancies for U.S. farmers. Farmers in the U.S. cannot export their products to the countries requiring labels unless they label their food themselves. The added worry and cost of labels makes it hard for American farmers to compete in European markets.

Both sides of the argument have valid viewpoints. But I think as long as biotechnology is doing good, and its effects are proved to be harmless, no labels should be required. Labels only urge the consumer into thinking there could be something wrong with the food when it is perfectly healthy. The labels are also and added cost to the farmer, unnecessarily raising the price of food.