Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should the sale of genetically modified food be banned?
Genetically modified crops threaten biodiversity.
Often plants are genetically modified without consideration of how the new species will interact with other species in the environment.
Some genetically modified crops are specifically engineered to be more
than their naturally diversified variants. This makes them more likely to be selected over their non-disease resistant counterparts.
Companies will pick the genetically strongest crops to mass produce, which leads to
. This could make massive amounts of crops vulnerable to disease or blight all at the same time.
If genes from a genetically modified crop are transferred to wild versions of the crop, this will potentially
(p.8) the pool of genes available to improve the crop in the future.
Out-crossing can occur - a GM crop that passes on new traits to relatives in the wild. Those relatives might be altered in such a way that they now have a completely new ecological role,
causing them to 'out-compete'
other species in the ecosystem.
Commercial agriculture itself
. Native species are plowed under to plant fields-ful of a limited number of species. There is no implication, in the parent argument, that more land area will be planted due to the use of GMOs.
Biodiversity has no intrinsic value which should be preserved.
Genetic modification can be used to prevent certain crops from becoming
Genetically modified crops lead to more natural biodiversity because less agricultural space is needed for the same yield, allowing fields to stay fallow.
GMO crops could lead to more artificial biodiversity as researchers experiment with strain combinations that would otherwise not exist within nature.
These effects are considered during the licensing process. This is an argument for more stringent oversight, not an outright ban.