Still, if that helps us fight hunger GMOs?

Still, if that helps us fight hunger GMOs?

In the treatment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs, Eng. NGO - non-government organization) says that genetically modified (GM) crops do not help to increase yields, not to mention the fact that they do not solve the problems of hunger, soil erosion and chemical contamination of soil .

Genetic engineering is not able to increase the productivity of any cereal, but significantly increases the cost of chemicals, contributing to the growth of "superweeds." So-called "miraculous" crops that are about 20 years ago for the first time began to be sold in the U.S. and is now grown in 29 countries about 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres) of land were presented to society as a potential weapon to combat the shortage of food, climate change and soil erosion. However, assessing the current situation, one could argue that the promises were empty.

With the development of genetically engineered famine reached "epic proportions". The use of synthetic chemicals designed to control pests has increased, despite the justifications of biotech companies that GM-engineered crops have reduced insecticide use.

In China, with the use of GM cotton (1997), which is resistant to insect pests, 12-fold increase in the number of these same insects.The International Journal of Biotechnology in 2008 states that the exemptions for the purchase of GM cotton does not cover the cost of pesticides, intended to control pests. In Argentina and Brazil with the use of GM crops has doubled in the use of herbicides in India - 13 times.

The appeal also states that the weeds in GM crops at the genetic level also began to receive resistance to herbicides and pesticides, which are intended to be used with these crops. This led to the emergence of "superweeds", especially in the U.S.. For ten of these weeds at least 22 states in the U.S. by about 6 million hectares (15 million acres) of cohabiting with soy and cotton.Consequently, farmers are forced to use more herbicides to control persistent weeds.

The company succeeded in selling their crops more than 15 million farmers, largely due to lobbying governments, local companies buying conventional seeds, their exclusion from market sales. Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta - the three largest companies in the world to produce and sell GMOs - control nearly 70% of the world sales of grain. This allows them to "have" and sell GM seeds through patents and thus charge a surcharge to the farmers, this statement says.

Researchers accuse Monsanto to control more than 95% of the Indian market cotton seed, in an artificial increase in prices. It is believed that over the past 15 years enormous debt among Indian farmers has led to at least 250 000 suicides.

This message is supported by many worldwide government and public organizations, among them the Center for Food Safety in the U.S. (CFS), Confederation Paysanne, Gaia Foundation and others. They also question the safety of GM crops, taking into account the studies and experiments in this area, and suggest that humans and animals suffer allergic reactions to the obvious result of the use of GMOs.

This suggests that scientists are unwilling to question the safety aspects of GMOs for fear of the institutions that govern such technologies, and often receive large bonuses from the companies.

Monsanto has responded to this call with his statement: "In our opinion, the safety and benefits derived from GMOs are obvious.Hundreds of millions of people eat foods from GM crops, and has not been shown a single case of illness, which could be attributed to GM crops ... " Last year, the National Research Council at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a report "The impact of genetically engineered crops on the stability of farming in the United States," which emphasizes that the American farmers, growers of biotech crops receive substantial economic and environmental benefits compared to with conventional crops, such as low production costs, reduce pest problems, reducing the amount of pesticide use, the collection of good harvests. "

David King, former UK chief scientist and now director of the school Smith at Oxford University, believes that part of the blame for food shortages in Africa lies in the anti-GMO campaigns carried out in developed countries.

But the authors of the appeal believe that GM crops are unreliable sources of food and more, because now large areas of cultivated plants as biofuel, because of this the land will automatically fall out of local food production.

Vendena Shiva, director of India's international organization Navdanya, the coordinator of this appeal, finds that "the model of GM farming prevents farmers, who tend to engage in environmentally sound agriculture. Coexistence of GM and conventional crops is impossible, because genetic pollution and contamination of conventional crops GMO ingredients can not be controlled.

Despite all the speculation of scientists and representatives of the slogans of companies producing GMOs, I think, hard to draw definitive conclusions about the benefits and dangers of GMOs. Supporters and critics of GMOs only pursue their goals, and are usually paid for this purpose. But what is now happening in the market with products rich GM, I think many calls unfounded fears.Need all the good research and study, and only then loudly say to the world that it will help the hungry and to feed the whole world.

What do you think?