2007-02-27 11:51:36 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
The pros are that you can genetically engineer higher yield foods, and also add different nutrients to them so that you get an over-all more nutritious end product. This can help a lot- you can feed more people with high yield crops, and feed them better if you alter the nutrients and vitamins provided. We can direct evolution in a way that is more beneficial for ourselves.
The con, besides the ethic debate about whether it is right to alter things and so "play God", would be that we don't really know what side effects there might be to some of our alterations, from ecological perspectives as well as environmental perspectives. Humans have drastically altered a lot of ecological interactions unintentionally; without a lot of detailed studies we cannot be sure if these alterations might affect pest control or resource usage.
2007-02-27 12:05:12 · answer #1 · answered by kiddo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have been genetically altering livestock and crops since the beginning of agriculture.
Everything we eat is a genetically modified crop.
DNA splicing is just a new tool to use other than selective breeding, cross pollenization, and grafting.
Don't let the Luddites scare you away.
2007-02-27 22:04:08 · answer #2 · answered by Holden 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good: hey they are better for you now
bad: what they hell'd they alter them with???
2007-02-27 19:55:14 · answer #3 · answered by Trouble 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
don't eat it..........................
2007-02-27 19:54:55 · answer #4 · answered by James k 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋