Save money now: 27 ways to lower your utility bills
In the current economic climate, its been a bit rough for those that want to go green on a budget. Not everyone can...
Read the rest of this articleGenetically modified food is BETTER for the environment. Really?
The National Research Council just finished a study that concludes genetically modified foods are better for the environment than the their natural counterparts. On the surface that sounds like great news for huge farming conglomerates who purchase the sturdiest varieties of plants from companies focused on creating them gene by gene.
Why are genetically modified foods better for the environment? Ostensibly because they’re more resistant to herbicides which allows farmers to kill the bad plants more economically while preserving their crops. It makes exposure to glyphosate largely a problem of the past, at least for the genetically modified plants. For humans glyphosate can cause eye irritation and is poisonous in concentrated doses – effects on unborn fetuses are still being tested.
Glyphosate aside, genetically modified food allows farmers to spray herbicide directly on their crops and till the soil less. That means longer productive cycles for plots of land. Honey bees also benefit because crops that are naturally resistant to pests require less pesticide and fewer bees are lost in the crossfire.
Of course, just because humans are engineering plants to resist herbicides and pests, that doesn’t exclude species of weeds from developing innate resistances. L. LaReesa Wolfenbarger, a University of Nebraska biologist says "Genetically modified crops have had less adverse effects on the environment,” according to The Wall Street Journal.
But that cycle only works if farmers use herbicides as suggested. Too many applications allows quick adaptation from weeds with short life cycles. And while that might make perfect sense from an external perspective, consider a farmer who’s faced with the decision of spraying another round of herbicide or losing out on a crop. Asking a farmer to choose what’s better for the environment over what’s best for their bottom line is a benign proposition at best.
This report also doesn’t dive into the side effects humans may experience from consuming genetically modified food, nor how easily pollen from these crops could spread to natural crops.
- Login to post comments
Comments
you are fucking liars and for trying to kill us we shall take back what youve taken from us and return the favor for chemtrails, and genetically engineered food that causes cancer you sick fucks
You sir, are retarded. You'd rather have starvation than affect less than %1 of society. GMOs don't cause cancer, it's particulates in the air, fatty and sugary diets, and lack of an active lifestyle. Don't blame science on your cancer when it's mostly your own damn fault because you want big screen TVs and McDonalds five times a day.
Good article and the way the whole process has been explained makes so much sense to me now. Not to offend anyone here but I have also read somewhere that genetically engineered foods cause cancer. But keeping that aside I'm glad I cleared my misconceptions about genetically grown foods. If this method is beneficial to the environment and the consumers, it should be practiced more widely.
Minneapolis MN Real Estate
It's scary and crazy when you can't grow your own food and when food becomes just another product, it actually better to die than eat gmo food because this will effect entire human race with its unknown effects. It's a common sense that human population is the reason and problem for food shortage.....as long as human population will increase, there will be food shortage...GMO companies just found the ticket so to speak in fooling people that they are the heroes, that it's good for the environment and that they have the right over the food....that's a real life nightmare...