The reading states that the genetically modified food offers certain benefits. However, the professor argues that the benefits are not clear and opposes each benefit mentioned in the reading.
First, the article posits that through genetic modification, researchers can produce better crops with attributes that would take centuries to produce in any other way. On the other hand, the lecture claims that the food does not necessarily produce as expected. Genetic changes take hundreds of years in nature. As a result, the crops are tested over large spans of time in a variety of conditions. Researcher simply cannot produce better and stable crops as nature.
Second, the author claims that genetically modified foods are safe. Contractedly, the lecture says safety is still a question. The professor says safety of the food is based on the data available through peer review. In reality, a Manufacture company rarely publishes their safety data for peer review. They are unlikely to publish data because of the fear of their opponents to copy it. There is no data out-there to do peer reviews, so without it safety is not testified.
Third, the reading states that genetic modification creates crops that underdeveloped countries can use to alleviate food shortage and avoid famine. However, the lecture opposes this point by saying that genetically modified food helps to grow more crops with less water, but the food shortage is due to lack of infrastructure to distribute foods to the needed one. The developing company’s relies on their food revenue. Even thought, their high-selling food, it is not helpful to solve the food storage and famine.
The reading states that the
genetically
modified
food
offers certain benefits.
However
, the professor argues that the benefits are not
clear
and opposes each benefit mentioned in the reading.
First
, the article posits that through genetic modification, researchers can
produce
better
crops
with attributes that would take centuries to
produce
in any other way.
On the other hand
, the lecture claims that the
food
does not
necessarily
produce
as
expected
. Genetic
changes
take hundreds of years in nature.
As a result
, the
crops
are
tested
over large spans of time in a variety of conditions. Researcher
simply
cannot
produce
better and stable
crops
as nature.
Second, the author claims that
genetically
modified
foods
are safe.
Contractedly
, the lecture says
safety
is
still
a question. The professor says
safety
of the
food
is based
on the
data
available through peer review. In reality, a Manufacture
company
rarely publishes their
safety
data
for peer review. They are unlikely to publish
data
because
of the fear of their opponents to copy it. There is no
data
out-there to do peer reviews,
so
without it
safety
is not testified.
Third, the reading states that genetic modification creates
crops
that underdeveloped countries can
use
to alleviate
food
shortage and avoid famine.
However
, the lecture opposes this point by saying that
genetically
modified
food
helps
to grow more
crops
with less water,
but
the
food
shortage is due to lack of infrastructure to distribute
foods
to the needed one. The developing
company
’s relies on their
food
revenue. Even
thought
, their high-selling
food
, it is not helpful to solve the
food
storage and famine.