THE PROMISE OF FOOD SECURITY ( a critical review by Mala UEC 2B )

Genetically modified food becomes an important issue around the world. Many experts have been discussing whether it should be developed or not. Some experts think that GM food gives more benefits while others think that it only endangers the environment and human health. That is the issue argued in the article The Promise of Food Security, published in Far Eastern Economic Review, on April 4, 2002. The purpose of the author, David Lague, is to inform the readers that GM food could bring some advantages and it is safe to be consumed. He argues that even though some people such as Greenpeace members claim that GM food could endanger the environment and human health, there is no proven scientific evidence. The author starts by showing some opinions of the experts who get involved directly in biotechnology such as See Yee, Ron Cantrell, Channapatna S Prakash, Ingor Potrykus and Patrick Moore. All of them agree that GM food has a potential to be a solution in increasing productivity and overcomes starvation in developing countries. Lague presents Sees opinion that Biotechnology is an effective way to reduce hunger and overcome food demand. Some of those experts such as Prakash and Potrykus said that people and the campaign against GM food has been showing an over-reaction in presenting its bad effects rather than thinking as the solution of food demand in most developing countries. Lague then goes on by presenting the opinion of Greenpeace member, Luisa Tam, who opposes genetic engineering. Tam argues that GM crops and foods are not safe. Even though she has no proof, she uses an analogy by giving an example of cigarette use.

Finally, the author shows that some groups or people who reject GM food use fear to get fund and money. He shows a study, which was done by Don DCruz, a Melbournebased analyst, with the conservative Institute of Public Affairs. This article was published in Far Eastern Economic Review, so it is aimed for people who are interested in economics and may be interested to invest their funds in genetic engineering research. The author aims to show the readers that GM food is not as dangerous as viewed by Greenpeace or other groups who oppose GM food. Therefore, if the readers, most of them which are businessmen, interesting to invest their money in GM food, they have new opportunity. By using this publication, the author tries to engage businessmen in investing their funds for biotechnology research and supporting GM crops and foods. From the by-line, we will find the authors argument. He clearly argues that even though there is an opinion that GM food has some disadvantages, which could damage the environment and human health, no scientific evidence that indicates this opinion. The purpose of the author is to prove that GM food has some advantages for developing countries and it is safe to be consumed. The author refutes some arguments of GM food oppositions by providing opinions of the experts who get involved directly in biotechnology. For example, he presents the opinion of a biologist, See Yee, who is an executive director of not-for-profit Malaysian Biotechnology Information Center. The others experts are Ron Cantrell who is the director of the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), a scientist Channapatna S. Prakash who is Professor of plant molecular genetics at Alabamas Tuskegee University, and an Ecologist Patrick Moore. They are reliable sources and their opinions could make Lagues argument stronger because they come

from reliable institutions and they have deeply background of this area. Lague uses a range of evidence to support his argument that GM food has some advantages and it has the potential to solve the food problem in developing countries. He also provides an opinion from Greenpeace, as an opposition, in order to make his article balanced and not bias. He tries to give both points of view from the people who support GM food and who against GM food. The authors tone is hopeful and positive. He shows that GM food is not as bad as the media and Greenpeace showed. It has some advantages and he proves it by giving expert opinion and research that in fact GM food can reduce agricultures harmful effect on the environment and it is safe to be consumed. But then his tone changes into cynical and skeptical tone when he explains the action of Greenpeace against biotechnology. It is shown in sentence professional activists are leading the assault and exploiting fears about this technology to raise funds from foreign governments, foundations and charities. It also could be seen from the picture. He shows the campaign of Greenpeace against GM food, which there is people use horrible mask. He aims to show the readers how Greenpeace become hysterical and over-act in rejecting GM food. There are some strengths of his article. He uses reliable and sufficient evidence to support his argument because he presents opinion of reliable sources and also provides sufficient research such as research from the conservative Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne IRRI which is a credible institute, statistic from The UNs Food and Agriculture Organization which is a famous organization in the world. The author also presents balanced opinion from both sides so this article is not biased.

Generally, the structure of the article is good. He provides strong evidence and reliable source in proving his argument and refuting the opposite argument. He could make me change my opinion. I used to think that GM food only endangers our health and environment, however, after reading this article I think we should consider GM food as an alternative way to overcome food problems in poor and developing countries. It is related to the growth of population in those countries and the demand to food. If we have another alternative maybe we would not consume GM food because of its bad effects, but is there any alternative way in supplying food to the poor countries? Compared to Gibson et al (1994), there is the similar opinion that GM food has some benefits that might be considered in the future to supply the demand of food in poor countries. However, Gibson only focuses on the advantages of GM food for the producers and the market owners while Lague focuses on using GM food for supplying food needing in poor countries. Based on Gibson et al (1994), GM food will have a big impact on food production throughout the world. It will affect agriculture, the fermentation industry, food processing, and marketing. This opinion supports Lagues opinion that GM food can give some advantages to poor countries in fighting hunger and supplying enough food. In conclusion, this article proves that GM food is not as dangerous as some people though. It has some advantages, too. The author argues that some people over-act in perceiving GM food even though they do not have scientific evidence. The author also asks the question for the people who oppose GM food; do they have any alternative way in solving the food problems in poor and developing countries? If they have, maybe they could reject GM food and try their alternative way to overcome this problem. The article

is written well and has strong evidences to support his argument. We should consider GM food as an alternative way to solve the problem in poor countries which do not have enough food.

References: Gibson, C, Ruseck, W & Simon, A (1994), Genes Help Rattle The Food Chain, The ABC of IELTS. Lague, D (2002), The Promise of Food Security, Far Eastern Economic Review, p. 3437.