Pamela Ronalds Ted Talk, The case for engineering our food, is a passionate

plea to the non-believers, the anti-GMO contingent, who believe theres something
sinister about genetic modification. Although Ronalds talk is both interesting and
provocative, she fails to convince me that GMO foods are a panacea for solving world
hunger while saving the environment.
Although Ronald provides accurate data about several examples, she is not fairminded in her presentation. She does not acknowledge that many research studies are
funded by industry, making their results biased, which leads me to question the validity of
her assumption that the absence of published research on negative effects of GMOs
means that GMOS are not harmful. Additionally, Ronald exclusively presents her point of
view as a plant geneticist, which makes this talk extremely one-sided. She even adds in
the fact that her husband is an organic farmer, which is irrelevant to the issue.
According to Psychology Today, human beings are likely to embrace any belief
that is absolute, which may be why she stated, virtually everything we eat has been
genetically modified in some manner. This statement is imprecise and lacks depth. What
foods are genetically modified, are there certain categories of foods? How can they all be
modified if genetic-level modification is relatively new? I agree that farmers have been
hybridizing crops for many years, but surely there is a difference between genetic
modification and hybridization.
Ronald also does not consider the negative implications of privatization of crop
growing. If corporations own the rights to grow basic crops such as wheat and corn, what
prevents them from controlling food sources? Further, if we allow scientists to design a
perfect type of papaya, for instance, will we lose the bio-diversity necessary to fighting

off new viruses and fungi? When designing GMO foods, do scientists consider flavor and
nutrition, or just shelf life and yield? I value flavor and nutrition, but a corporation may
prioritize production over taste.
Despite my skepticism, Ronald does succeed in opening my mind to the positive
impacts of GMO foods. The significance of her work with golden rice to help prevent
malnutrition and blindness for thousands of children is impressive. Ronald does back up
her conclusions using sound logic: if we use genetic engineering in our food, then we
can fight pests and diseases, reduce the amount of insecticides, and reduce malnutrition.
However, my research showed that some GMO crops actually are associated with
increased pesticide use.
Although I am unconvinced of Ronalds argument, because this is an evolving
field, I remain open to the possibility of GMOs improving life for people and for the
planet.