GM Foods

In their severe critique of GM-foods research and development, Teitel and Wilson take the view that the R&D into GM foods, which is controlled almost exclusively by large corporate interests, has been heedless and in many cases dangerous and that to encourage the introduction of GM foods into the agricultural and consumer-foods marketplace or to use GM foods as a mechanism for the raising of crops that are meant to affect the structure of medical-care delivery represents a significant risk for the future of every feature of experience that it touches directly. As well, the authors suggest, GM foods hold significant, though unknown, negative indirect consequences for the quality of life in both the developed and undeveloped world.

Teitel and Wilson begin with an analysis of what they term "farmaceuticals," the name they given to GM crops that are have infused or grafted into them certain healthful properties and/or substances such as vitamins, enzymes, or other antioxidants that are meant to beneficially alter their metabolism when ingested. They give such examples as rice boosted with additional beta carote

. . .
er be sustained or continually recalibrated in ways that have the effect of enhancing or negatively affecting the biosphere, including the sphere of human life. As regards the issue of control, if GM foods turn out to have an impact on the natural agricultural environment as significant as Teitel and Wilson seem to think is possible, certain implications flow from the fact that 80% of all "genfood" market share is under the control of one American-based multinational corporation: Monsanto/Pharmacia (Teitel & Wilson, 2001, p. 4). One key implication is that genfood has the potential to become a flashpoint between the haves and the have-nots of the geopolitical as well as natural environment. Other commentary lends support to the arguments of Teitel and Wilson, even as it problematizes them. There is a view among some environmentalists that by 2030 the projected 50% increase in world population (within that number a potential threefold population increase in poor countries) may double demand for food while also stretching the global ecosystem to its limits. Asia and Africa, positioned in the environmental discourse with the South rather than North, are considered to be most at risk (Daily, et al., 1999). That describes a situation
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Teitel Wilson, R&D GM, South North, Republic China, Meanwhile GM, Indeed GM, , teitel wilson, gm foods, Siniscalco Walker, Retrieved April, Wilson Bailey, teitel wilson 2001, 2001 4, anti-gm advocates, bailey 2001, daily et, et al, gm technology, wilson 2001, daily et al, food production, et al 1999, threatens entire ecosystem, retrieved april 21,
Approximate Word count = 2453
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)