Title : Why We Won’t Be Able To Feed The World Without GM
link : Why We Won’t Be Able To Feed The World Without GM
Why We Won’t Be Able To Feed The World Without GM
id = " One thing I remember vividly from my childhood is The Day of the Triffids . In apocalyptic novel by John Wyndham, the Triffids were carnivorous plants that do not need roots and had developed three legs so they can find their prey (whose nitrogen is fed instead). They were originally bred by humans to provide high-quality vegetable oil, as demand of the growing population of food was outstripping supply. Initially contained on farms, the Triffids escaped after a "celestial event extreme" and began to terrorize the human population.
Replace "play" with "genetic modification" and you have the contemporary warning about the threat of "Frankenstein" to human health and the environment. But this raises another question - if we ignore its potential, what it means for human food needs in the future? The Day of the Triffids was first published in 1951, right at the beginning of the "revolution green ". The last thing was the breeding of new varieties of cereals were high performance. Along with other recently developed technologies, including machinery - tractors and irrigation pumps - and synthetic inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers, this helped double important production of commodity crops between 1960 and 2000-2000000 tons worldwide, refuting Malthus fears about the world being unable to feed its growing population. In the last decade, the rosy glow has worn off a bit. The growth of world crops decreased and even stagnant perhaps due to the change climate - especially heat stress and drought. Yields no longer increasing fast enough to keep pace with projected demand. If current trends continue, have to expand our farmland by 42% by 2050. As a result, the forests will be lost. Along with the associated costs that requires more water, in addition to the effects on biodiversity, this increase emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture significantly. In total, food is set to emit greenhouse gases sufficient to overcome the entire target of 1.5 ℃ high temperature asked in Paris 2050. supply ... There are basically two options: we can increase yields to meet demand without expanding area, and / or can reduce enough demand to allow the supply to be up to date. The increase in supply in a sustainable manner is perfectly possible. Some of this is about increasing efficiency by improving agriculture such as the use of precision agriculture to target the appropriate fertilizers and pesticides amounts to the right places. Part of it is about changing land management for maximum performance of agricultural land, while maintaining environmental services, for example by handling the edges of the fields as buffer strips to prevent chemicals can be washed away by heavy rains; and as places with lots of wild flowers where bees can be developed to improve crop pollination. And some of them is on the development of new varieties of plants and animals that are more efficient, more productive, and better able to cope with the changing environment. The new varieties can take place from various media. Conventional selection remains important. But modern laboratories have given us more strings to our bow. Not all biotechnological approaches are genetic modification in the legal sense. The use of chemicals or X-rays to create genetic variation has long been a pillar of the "conventional breeding", for example. Other techniques - like CRISPR - are possibly after GM, since they may involve clinical editing of individual genes without leaving a firm foreign DNA. CRISPR may occur identical to those conventionally produced plants, but much faster. However, for some people, biotech crops or livestock modification evokes "triffidophobia".
Chop Chop Mopic What so we must be cautious about new technologies? Conventional breeding has served us well, but can not keep up with demand or the speed with which the climate is changing. Any changes in agricultural practices have associated risks that must be evaluated and managed, but they must also be weighed against the risks of doing nothing. To increase the supply of food to meet projected demand, growing in the same way as we do now, emissions from deforestation and other changes lock ourselves in 4-5 ℃ a world of climate change. Along with other significant costs to the environment and human health and welfare, which is probably a greater risk than the alternative. is difficult to guess the amount of biotechnological approaches contribute to the solution, however. We still have to develop precision farming and smarter use of land. And even if they halved the gap between current and required performance - a big question worldwide - still we need more land to meet demand. This is still an impact on the taste of our water supply and create sufficient heating to challenge the objectives of Paris. ... or demand? This is where the second option comes in - the decrease in demand. Worldwide which livestock feed about one third of the calories we grow - enough to feed all the people in Asia. About a third of the food we grow is also lost or wasted. And around the world, many people eat enough to become ill through excessive obesity, diabetes and so on. If we have become more prudent buying decisions and consumption, potentially we could halve the current global demand for food. That would create space for sustainably feed the growing population and biofuels and carbon storage in new growth forests. For me, the message is clear. We are unsustainably using the planet's resources to produce the food that we demand, and there will be very negative if we continue on the same path. The new technology can help, but the assessed needs as it develops. The old technology still has a role; as well as reducing waste, excessive consumption and heavy meat diets. There is no simple answer, but there is a toolbox, and we will need all the tools at our disposal to address the challenge that we have created. Our technology will not produce The Day of the Triffids, but without it, we can create a future apocalypse now Source :. iflscience.com
Thanks for Reading Why We Won’t Be Able To Feed The World Without GM
Thank you for reading this Why We Won’t Be Able To Feed The World Without GM, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Why We Won’t Be Able To Feed The World Without GM Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-we-wont-be-able-to-feed-world.html
0 Response to "Why We Won’t Be Able To Feed The World Without GM"
Post a Comment