Is genetic engineering of food necessary?

The argument for genetic engineering of food is that while the world population continues to expand, the area of land available for food production is finite. If the world's population increases, food production has to be increased. So, proponents of GM foods argue that without genetic engineering of food there will not be enough food to meet the demands of future populations.

This argument has some validity, but current techniques are not capable of significantly expanding production. The primary reason for popularizing GM foods is to generate profits for large corporations seeking greater revenues. Proponents also argue that the development of crops with enhanced resistance to weeds, pests, or diseases will lead to a reduction in the use of pesticide chemicals.

The reality is that farmers who grow GM crops actually use more herbicide, not less. For example, Monsanto created Roundup Ready (RR) soy, corn, and cotton specifically so that farmers would continue to buy Roundup, the company's best-selling chemical weed killer, which is sold with RR seeds. Instead of reducing pesticide use, one study of more than eight thousand university-based field trials indicated that farmers who plant RR soy use two to five times more herbicide than farmers who use traditional weed control methods.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.