" (BBC, October 14 2013) The main concern is how we as society view regulation, patent laws and the role big corporations play in the food supply chain. .
In Whitman's article, she makes the case for the ending of world hunger and possible benefits of GMO's along with stating some unwanted side effects. She says "we must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology proceeds. "(Whitman, pg. 7) In my opinion Otero and Pechlaner demonstrate how the high tech agro industry is not aligned to the needs of people. Their research is an example of how economics can be used by corporations to work against the needs of the people. The world saving aura of GMO's with big corporations and incomprehensive government regulations are not ideal to alleviate humanity out of hunger and poverty. "The idea, then, by simply increasing crop yields we can solve the food crisis is problematic where in a world where most people go hungry not because there isn't plentiful food, but because they cannot afford what food there is"" (Otero and Pechlaner pg.30). They illustrate how the idea of simply increasing crop yields will not end hunger and actually has the opposite effect. "Despite the increasing yields of transgenic corn in Mexico, corn prices rose 15% and consumption dipped by 30%"" (Otero and Pechlaner pg.30). .
As things stand the economic argument for GMO's are misleading and inaccurate, questions of ownership of genetic material and dubious patent laws must be raised. With big business maximizing profits and minimizing human intervention through technology, these issues have an indispensable role in determining the real benefits of this technology to humanity as whole and not just the interests of large corporations. Patent laws and the Biotech agricultural industry are actually damaging the economic welfare of local farmers, which incidentally is one of the largest sectors of employment for the poor worldwide.
