Is GM  foods good for world hunger?
931011
No, but, ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) is. I think GM use their products and I have made good money on their stocks. ADM's motto is; "When you walk into a store, you will not see our name, but, ...................... We are there"! Another statement they make is; "If it was not for world Politics, ................ We could feed the world" I believe they can!!!!!
714120
Genetic engineering can, indeed solve many health and ecological issues such as preventing diseases involved in transcription, etc. and increasing crop yield.  Whether or not it's the hope of the future is unique to each person.
373496
Whole Foods Market (WFMI)  Had a big pullback recently\nWild Oats (OATS)\nUnited Natural Foods (UNFI) Distributor to places like WFMI and OATS.  Hard to go wrong with that as long as people eat more "natural" and organic food.\nHain Celestial (HAIN) The only organic food mfg. I know to trade.  Would love to hear about others.\n\nYou are smart to get on this megatrend, and there's plenty of time and easy money left for it if you stick around (have you ever heard anybody say there's still easy money in any stock market or sector????).  Anxiety about our poisoned environment will only increase, and Americans with money can only do one thing about it--insulate themselves as best they can with water purifiers and safer food and such.  With the Bush administration attacking environmental protections every day, "natural" and organic foods are getting free advertising worth billions.  The only down side is these stocks are not recession resistant like agribusiness food stocks.  If things get bad, people will go back to ingesting dangerous chemicals to save money.\n\nAnother related megatrend that head-in-the-sand Republicans are missing out on is the earth's population is systematically destroying its supply of usable fresh water.  The companies that can purify, move, desalinate, or control potable water are going to profit massively from endless demand for shrinking supply.
537242
If you think the human race is bad, imagine a world populated by 6 billion orangutans!\n\nWhat a mess! They'd be running around everywhere and smashing the place up. The economy would be heavily biased in favour of banana production and you have really rich "Banana Barons" and  there'd be countless wars over bananas.\n\nI don't think were doing that bad when you think about it like that. By and large we seem to get on in most places.\n\nWe could maybe eat more bananas though.
1097318
I'd end world hunger. There's absolutely no excuse for it. Americans already consume the majority of the world supply of grain. And we definitely don't need that much food.
1174309
I agree with you... the world probebly produces enough food.... however people starve due to poverty... impovrish countries cannot afford to get the food to their people or bad land like you said!
419754
well I think that genetically modified foods are not bad as people say since they can growth in terminal or poor soils and is a way to feed many world third countries where the population is always increasing and though they are not 100% safe to eat there is not many other cheaper and faster way to feed the population ....and also I think that some genetic modified foods may have higher nutritional values than organic foods since proteins, minerals are added in the process of making the genetic modified food.................................
422810
try this: http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0115E/T0115E0j.htm
1170152
there is none! A torn meniscus is an injury to the cartilidge in the knee. I had the same injury about a year ago. I was told to take huge doses of glucosamine and chondroitin to rebuild it, but not a word about GM foods. I would agree that it is bad to eat genetically modified foods, but it has nothing to do with a knee injury. \n\nhmmmm maybe there is something in GM foods that effects the regrowth of the cartilidge. I would love to know if there is!
100575
Do a hydroponic experiment.  it shows how the prospect of food shortages can be addressed.
538516
Advantages is that they produce more food, therefore feeding more people, especially for those countries in need.\n\nHowever, they are genetically modified and some people are afraid of gm foods.
236694
.THIS PLANET IS NOW DRYING OUT.In northern china the 2 major deserts are merging to create a super desert.\n\nthousands of farmers that once were food producers are now running for their lives before the advancing dust storms.The Sahara is growing by 7 kilometros a day\n\n.The world population has doubled in the last fifty years ,faster than  humanity has ever done since we became homosapians. we are loosing species every minute.We are in fact witness to a mass extinction for the first time again since the day of the dinasaurs.\n\nAGRICULTURAL LAND IS LOST ALL OVER THE GLOBE.TO DESERTIFICATION ,OVERPUMPING OF CARBON AQUIFIERS.\nForest fires and deforestacion (to create more farmlands )are detroying that which make the water.\n\nEACH YEAR THERE ARE LESS AND LESS FARMERS,their sons becoming something else , in Africa there are many dying of aids  In china many lost their lands, \n\nAnd each year these less and less farmers have to feed an increase of (,at the moment) 70 million people.(But this is speeding up.)\n\nTo produce a ton of maize takes 1000 tons of water.If you havent got water but you have money,such as China,you will buy water in the form of maize,and at high prices.\n\nCanada and Australia have limited their sales already and only to their regular good customers.Other countries WILL sell causing inflation and rising food prices at home and so produce unstable governments.\n\nwe find ourselves in a bubble econemy about to burst.\n\nthe bottom line is that with less land,less farmers and less water.the global farming comunity will not be able to feed everybody in the world.\n\nThe disapearing biomass is threatening our very atmosphere.\neach rise of temperature by one degree means 10% of croploss.And the planet is getting hotter.\n\nThe sea is rising ,which means more loss of agricultural land.\n\nThe world desperately needs alternative ways to produce food.\n\nso to save Mankind,to save the world ,to change the tide, to tip the balance and to answer the question ,\n\nthe solution is that \nif the billions of people on this planet who have any ground at all ;grow something.\n\nTo combat rising food prices by bringing an enormous amount of food unto the local markets ,\n\ncombat the threat to the global environment ,by creating an enormous amount of biomass which will produce humidity,\nAnd all of it outside and beyond the concept of agriculture.\n\nThe many billions of pieces of land are there,and so are the people.Just buy a spade and get some seeds.the books exist,\n\nI recommend Permaculture since that is my area ,but their are many other concepts.\n\nAnd you will get healthy and cheap food,not to speak of making the place beautifull.\n\nIn this way we can get to Paradise without having to die first
1028809
Neither is nutritious to humans. They can only provide nutrition to grass-eating animals (cows, rabbits etc.)
116318
anyone who thinks that the world is overproducing food is just plain not paying attention. The current practices of food production in the world give us (or any living thing) about 40-80 more years of soil left for which to grow food in. If the practices of today's farmers are authenticated, then we can start "turning the clock back." To answer your question, the point was about 1940 when we overtook the earth's ability to provide for us. (think baby boomers). If we do things right, we can provide a healthy life for a pop'n of over 8 billion. Right now,only about 750 million people get adequately clean food and water.
969942
There are many plants that can grow in deserts, but if you are talking about non - desert species, this is more difficult.\n\nDrought resistance (the ability to grow in deserts for example) is described as a complex trait. This means that it is affected by many genes. Genetic modification usually focuses on one area of the genome (in simple terms, one gene), so making a GM plant that's drought resistant would involve not just changing one piece of DNA, but changing heaps of it. For example, to make a wheat plant as drought resistant as a cactus would involve changing so much of its DNA it would be fundamentally changed so much that it would probably be no longer identifiable as wheat!\n\nThere is a huge amount of global research about improving drought resistance in crops, but even if we could do this using genetic engineering, we are a really really long way from making it happen; if it could be done I'm sure you can imagine the consequences - the 23,000 people who die from starvation every day would still be alive, climate change would (arguably) be less of an issue, world economics would be dramatically changed - I'm sure you could think of more; although I guess the question would then have to be, if we could make even more of a global food surplus, would it be any more likely to reach the people who need it?
408128
Yes indeed of course we will.  In fact growing vegetables naturally and eating them close to where they are grown so that they are still fresh is ultimately cheaper and easier than any sort of artificial growth or long distance transportation or any kind of preserving once the real costs of other methods are added in.  I'd expect more of it in 50 years rather than less.
1129489
this is why i love yahoo answers you always learn something new by answering people's questions..."Crops improved through biotechnology have undergone more safety and environmental testing than any crop varieties in history, and have been produced and consumed by humans and animals in millions of tons around the world for years. They have been proven as safe as the scientific method permits, by every valid method known to science and medicine. There is, to date, not a single solitary confirmed case of human or animal illness or disease associated with a biotech crop. Nor has a single negative environmental impact been credibly attributed to biotech-improved varieties."\n\nIs that so? The following cases show that there is reason to be concerned about the safety of GE foods.\n\nPusztai's Potatoes \n\nQuestions over the safety of GE foods were raised as far back as in 1998, when renowned scientist Arpad Pusztai, of Scotland's Rowett Research Institute, tested an experimental GE potato on laboratory rats. At the time of this experiment, there was very little in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the safety of GE foods (a full two years after their introduction into the market!); Pusztai's was the first independent study to that end. \n\nThe rats fed on the GE potatoes suffered substantial damage to their immune systems, plus abnormal weight loss in various organs, including the brain, testicles and liver. Some also had abnormal growth in their intestinal cells, which could indicate a prelude to cancer. Despite a long and concerted industry campaign to discredit Pusztai, part of the results of his GE potato study were duly peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature. However, despite the industry and scientific establishment dismissing his work, there has been little attempt made to independently repeat and confirm the study, as is usually the case in science. Pusztai has published other results of his experiments since, which raise serious question over the safety of GM foods.\n\nThe Independent Science Panel\n\nIn 2003, Pusztai joined over a dozen colleagues with expertise in agroecology, agronomy, botany, medical chemistry, ecology, microbial ecology, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, to form the Independent Science Panel. The group released a report on GE crops and foods that reviewed the literature and concluded that:\n\n* Contrary to the claims of proponents, these crops have not been proven safe. The regulatory framework was fatally flawed from the start. It was based on an anti-precautionary approach designed to expedite product approval at the expense of safety considerations.\n\n* By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering may be inherent in the process itself.\n\n* There have been very few credible studies on GE food safety. Nevertheless, the available findings already give cause for concern.\n\n* There is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers.\n\n* Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and may jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer.\n\n* There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence in the promotion of agricultural biotechnology. Key experiments were not performed, or were performed badly and then misrepresented.\n\n* Sufficient evidence has emerged which raises serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GE crops should be firmly rejected now.\n\nThe Mon 863 Report \n\nOn May 22, 2005 the British daily The Independent reported the existence of a secret Monsanto report about its genetically engineered Mon 863 corn variety. According to the 1,139-page report, rats fed this corn for 13 weeks had abnormally high white blood cell counts, something that happens normally