GE Foods - Good or Bad ?
...etarians, Rauch has a wider audience. Both Farrell and Rausch have put together informative articles on GE foods as journalists. However, Farrell seems to have given more space to the opponents’ views in his article while Rausch seems to focus mostly on the proponents’ views. While Farrell’s angle of vision is more of a journalist aiming only to educate his audience, Rauch evinces more personal curiosity and exploration as well as concern about the future of farming for the preservation of the planet. However, both tend to build up a context to promote understanding of their audience and spread information. Furthermore, both attempt to approach the topic from the angle of vision of their audience, i.e. as laymen parachuting into the subject. Since they have assumed their readers to be laymen on the subject, both have chosen to write in accessible language and have used statistics to build credibility. While Farrell tries to present the views of both schools of thought impartially, Rauch seems to be a bit more focused which is evident from the beginning when he says “genetic engineering could feed humanity and solve a raft of environmental ills.”(103) Farrell establishes his credibility by the testimonies of farmers and a fair amount of statistics while Rauch has displayed first hand experience of agricultural sites that he visited with competent government personnel. While Farrell puts forward the notion that there is considerable disagreement over the fact that innovative farming methods using GE can help, Rausch explores the possibilities of GE being able to feed the ever-burgeoning population and solve the environmental problems, if only environmentalists would allow. Their viewpoints intersect when they talk about the scope of GE in the future. Farrell starts of by defining GMOs and parachutes into the health issues of GE food consumption while Rausch mostly talks about the innovative farming methods like no till farming. Farrell’s skepticism is reflected in the way he ends his article: “Leave it to the individual”(81). Rauch seems to be more hopeful about the future and predicts all countries to be self sufficient if certain conditions are fulfilled. While Farrell tries to incorporate all views, Rausch is more of a liberal thinker. Is genetic Engineering really the answer to solve the world’s problems in the coming future? Can transgenic crops be safe for human consumption? Farrell and Rausch have made me see how important these questions are for the policy making decisions of the government of India. However, Farrell’s article keeps me thinking about the specific health issues possible as he has neither mentioned about any specific diseases nor has he given any instances of GE food consumption causing illness. On the other hand, Rauch helps to see how GE crops can be the solution for many problems in the future. Farrell presents views of both schools of thought but fails to guide his thinking to some conclusion. In contrast to this, Rauch appears more definite about what he wants to say and successfully reaches a conclusion that GE crops are our only hope to support the exploding population and save the planet. However, I am slightly shocked by the over expectation that Rauch has from Biotechnology. Biotechnology can definitely give us more quantity, but what about quality? Undoubtedly, we need more food to cope with the population pressure, but we don’t need any new diseases accompanying the increased food production. The Indian Government should be extremely careful about forming its policy on this matter. We should realize that genetically modifying any organism essentially means tampering with the delicate balance of proteins in the plant. However, something new is not always bad. It is very much possible for at least some GE foods to be safe. Thus, the government needs to base its decisions on solid testing and research results and not on public opinion. Another option is to treat the issue on a case by case basis, i.e. testing each GE crop separately and approving only the ones which confirm 100% safety. On safety issues, there are places in which the author’s leave me thinking, especially Farrell. Rauch’s over-optimistic approach of GE being able to solve all problems in future seems slightly far fetched too. In most cases, GE foods undergo more testing than even the traditional foods. Thus, it would be fair to believe that GE foods in some cases can actually prove to be safer than the naturally produced crops. Reading these two articles have made me rethink my stance on the safety issues associated with GE. It is likely that some GE foods can indeed be detrimental to human health in the long run, if not immediately. Thus, it is the responsibility of the Indian Government to take its decision only after scientific confirmations on its safety. A government’s decision is going to affect over a billion people’s present and more importantly the future. Every Government has a moral responsibility to take care of its country men, and key decisions are the ones which affect the country the most. A government decision is not only going to affect the country’s health, but can have profound effect on India’s economy too. India, traditionally a rural agricultural society is alien to Biotechnology. A policy decision in favor of GE crops will be hard to implement because of two main reasons. Firstly be...