(See related pages)
|
|
|
| "Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble." Multinational Monitor Editorial.Location: http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog/index.php?/archives/74-Heads-Monsanto-Wins,-Tails-We-Lose;-The-Genetically-Modified-Food-Gamble.html Pre-reading Questions 1) Corporations are genetically modifying foods by splicing genes to alter the nature of the crops that are being grown. How does this make you feel? Should corporate scientists be tampering with the building blocks of science to increase crop yields? What are the potentially positive and negative sides of this issue? 2) Would you eat food that you knew was genetically modified? For example, some tomatoes' genes have been spliced with those of fish, and some potatoes' genes have been sliced with those of chickens. Is this "Frankenfood" a good idea? Journal Topics 1) One claim made by the proponents of bioengineered crops is that they can be bred to withstand weed killers like Roundup. The side effect, however, is weeds and other plants that are also resistant to the weed killer. What possible scenarios could come from natural plants evolving to resist chemical control? Can you picture any scenarios where genetically modifying plants could get out of control?Questions for Critical Thought 1) According to the article, "The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased anew every year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have blown onto their fields from neighboring farms." Should a corporation be able to sue small farmers for saving seeds and distributing them—something that many agrarian societies evolved doing? How much power should a corporation have over something as basic as a seed—after all, once a farmer buys seed and grows a new crop, doesn't the farmer now own the crop itself? 2) Backers of biotech foods suggest that such modified food "Promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries." Indeed, Clive James says that if we are to meet the goal "of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015…biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade." Conversely, the article argues that "existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply -- and posing enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet." Having read the article, which side seems most accurate? Is the new biotechnology just an excuse for companies like Monsanto to force farmers to use their patented seeds and crops, or will we need this biotechnology to help feed the world's poor? Suggestions for Personal Research 1) Look into laws and regulations in your state or the country about genetically modified foods and seeds. What genetically modified plants, fruits, and vegetables are commonly found in grocery stores? 2) Find some websites that discuss organic alternatives to genetically modified foods. According to websites taking stands on different sides of this issue, what are the benefits and downsides of genetically modified foods and organic foods? In the end, which ones make more sense to you?Multicultural Issues 1) While biotech planting is found in many nations, the biggest users are the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China. Why do you think certain countries use this new farming method and others still not? What information on this can you find?Vocabulary Terms proliferation infamous ambiguous rebuttal imperialism decry fear-mongering incalculable |