The reading and lecture are both about the launching of a new project--growing of Broccoli where it is previously not grown. The author of the reading feels that there were several benefits after doing so. The lecturer challenges a claim made by the author. He is of the opinion that this would not be successful, and have pernicious effects.
To begin with, the reading says that growing vegetables in one native place would decrease the price of vegetables, which initially have to bring from a long distance, in the form of transportation. The speaker casts doubt on it. She argues that growth in one place would not necessarily lead to a decrease in the price of products. She further suggests that the growing vegetables might have low productivity, lowering the yield per unit area, increases the price, and as a result, there would cancel in saving of money by the consumer.
Moreover, the article contends that the new products would be suitable for the consumers; obtained after the crossing of broccoli with other compatible parts. It further points that although genetic modified crops were hazardous, this would not be such. The lecturer, on the other hand, asserts that production from traditional breeding technology would be suspicious to the consumers. It further clarifies that as finance has been providing by the same company which produced crops with genetically modified technology, and have distrust with the consumers. Consequently, new products would be rejected.
Finally, the article posits that this new vegetable would be available right after harvest, contains a high amount of nutrients and vitamins. However, the professor refutes it by discussing that there might be many vegetables enriched with the same amount of nutrients that grow not only in winter but also in summer and fall too. For instance. kale and other many leafy vegetables have such properties. According to him, " people should be aware about the fruits and vegetables that were available locally" .
The reading and lecture are both about the launching of a
new
project--growing of Broccoli where it is previously not grown. The author of the reading feels that there were several benefits after doing
so
.
The
lecturer challenges a claim made by the author. He is of the opinion that this would not be successful, and have pernicious effects.
To
begin
with, the reading says that growing
vegetables
in one native place would decrease the price of
vegetables
, which
initially
have to
bring from a long distance, in the form of transportation. The speaker casts doubt on it. She argues that growth in one place would not
necessarily
lead to a decrease in the price of products. She
further
suggests that the growing
vegetables
might have low productivity, lowering the yield per unit area, increases the price, and
as a result
, there would cancel in saving of money by the consumer.
Moreover
, the article contends that the
new
products would be suitable for the consumers; obtained after the crossing of broccoli with other compatible parts. It
further
points that although genetic modified crops were hazardous, this would not be such. The lecturer,
on the other hand
, asserts that production from traditional breeding technology would be suspicious to the consumers. It
further
clarifies that as finance has been providing by the same
company
which produced crops with
genetically
modified technology, and have distrust with the consumers.
Consequently
,
new
products would
be rejected
.
Finally
, the article posits that this
new
vegetable
would be available right after harvest, contains a high amount of nutrients and vitamins.
However
, the professor refutes it by discussing that there might be
many
vegetables
enriched with the same amount of nutrients that grow not
only
in winter
but
also
in summer and fall too.
For instance
.
kale
and other
many
leafy
vegetables
have such properties. According to him,
"
;
people
should be aware about the fruits and
vegetables
that were available
locally"
;
.
Funny
Love
Wow
Angry
Sad