The genetically engineered foods question
In The Canadian Nation
by Kim Lundgren
Sceptics claim that the so-called "Frankenstein foods" pose an insidious threat to the environment and to the world's food supply. Proponents envision a future in which the wonders of biogenetics benefit humankind. Consumers worldwide fear yet-to-be-determined health risks.
The debate surrounding the genetic engineering of food has escalated in the past six months. Citing conflicting research, opposing camps trade accusations of hysteria and corporate greed.
So which is it? Here's how the sides line up.
Food First/Institute for Food & Development Policy
International Herald Tribune
By Eric Holt-Giménez
Published: July 10, 2007
The term "biofuels" suggests renewable abundance: clean, green, sustainable assurance about technology and progress. This pure image allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the United Nations and even the International Panel on Climate Change to present fuels made from corn, sugarcane, soy and other crops as the next step in a smooth transition from peak oil to a yet-to-be-defined renewable fuel economy.
In the wake of the current ethanol boom, many agro-fuel supporters have argued that their environmental benefits make them an environmentally viable alternative to imported oil. The proponents of agro-fuels often argue that increased usage of ethanol will reduce greenhouse gases and help fight global warming. However, a more detailed examination of agro-fuels reveals some disturbing environmental effects.