pro: Crop losses from insect pest result devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. To solve this problem farmers have to use tons of chemical pesticides every year. Consumers do not want to eat food that has pesticide on it because it can be very harmful to our body. Plus using pesticide can cause environmental pollution. So growing gmo that does not demands pesticide can eliminate the use of chemical substance (=pesticide 중복되서;;;ㅠ). Plus gmo plants genetically made to be resistant to weed-killer which helps to reduce production cost and waste. Plus gmo can be developed in an extreme environment and reduce timing of the harvest or increase the amount of production to solve food shortage. Plus it is tolerant to cold, drought and salinity too. Because of sudden weather change, unexpected frost can destroy the harvest, but gmo has antifreeze gene to bear cold weather. Also farmers grow crops in locations that used to be unsuited for plant cultivation. GMO can be cultivated anywhere including inhospitable places. FDA has already reported to put every product if it has more than 3% of gmo. If FDA says that lower than 3 % of gmo does not have to be labeled, that means lower than 3% of gmo does not effect to our bodies. Therefore, we don’t need to worry about health issues. People have fixed-idea about gmo being noxious for our body which causes consumers not to buy gmo food if we label them. But actually it is not true. Safety is not guaranteed but that does not mean it is harmful. (People are keep testing.)
con: I disagree with your opinion that gmo helps the environmental problems. GMO can intensify the destruction of environment. As you mentioned it before about, gmo plants that is tolerant to herbicide, weeds will cross-breed. Using herbicide does not pollute the plant itself, but eliminate the other wild plants. Then the weed becomes resistant to herbicide which is called ‘superweed’ . If people make plants that are...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document