Frankenfood

“Will Frankenfood Save the Planet� is an opinionated examination of whether transgenic foods offer a practical solution to feeding the planet as populations grow.
No-till farming, meaning no ploughing is a major change in the agricultural process, since ploughing has been the standard for over 10,000 years. Ploughing facilitates pollution run-off, erosion and release of greenhouse gases. Today’s ground-breaking farmers are working on ways to eliminate ploughing. The benefits of no-till farming are not only environmental, but it produces a higher and better quality yield. In addition, no-till farming is a financially wise move because it saves the expense of fuel needed for ploughing as well as other energy costs. Furthermore, no-till farming has had a large impact in cleaning up some of Virginia’s rivers and waterways because it limits the fertilizer run-off, which is a major cause of algae bloom that kills marine life. A major obstacle to no-till farming however is that it is dependent on the use of genetically modified crops.



	Recycling in manufacturing .... depletion. This is the dilemma we face. As discussed in the article "Will Frankenfood Save the Planet " by J. Rauch. technological .... (1112 4 )

	Genetically Engineered Food .... According to the article, "Frankenfood Frenzy ", researchers have found a way to enrich rice with beta carotene, converted by the body to vitamin A, by .... (929 4 )

On the other hand, one of the positive features of the article is the position that BALANCE is needed – society must weigh risks and benefits when making decisions to move forward. Ultimately, I think that the free market system will be the crucial factor is the future application of transgenic crops. In addition, I was pleased to see the issue of politics brought up as an obstacle. Cultural, political, social conditions often affect whether or not new technologies are accepted or rejected by a population.

The essay takes the position that we need to get over the population hump of the next 40 or 50 years. After that, we should home free. Nevertheless, how can we acheive that without causing major irreversible environmental damage? The Green Revolution was a start, but now there are more people to feed and less space available, so the strategy of the 1960s and 70s is not going to do the trick.

In my opinion, the negative aspects of the article include its bias. I understand this is not meant to be a detached research project.