Category: Analysis

7 Differences between Radical Feminism and Liberal Feminism

7 Differences between Radical Feminism and Liberal Feminism

Liberal feminism and radical feminism are the two main forms of feminism. While both advocate for equal rights to women, they differ in their ideologies, views on root of gender inequality and more. The major difference between them being that radical feminism advocates a radical shakeup of the system while liberal feminism does not campaign for a complete reorganization of the system. Here are more ways in which the two ideologies differ.

  • The Root Cause of Inequality

Radical feminism views patriarchy or male supremacy as the cause of gender inequality. They see society and its institutions as innately patriarchal, with men as the ruling class and women are the subject class. Liberal feminism believes that gender inequality stems from society and legal constructs. Liberals do not believe that society is innately patriarchal and that both genders are gradually becoming equal and this trend will continue over time porno français.

  • Core Beliefs

Liberals believe that all humans are equal and deserve equal rights. According to them, patriarchy ties down both women and men. On the other hand, radicals believe that patriarchy is oppressive towards women and that the male gender benefits from the subordination of women. Radical feminism believes that the domination of women by men is the oldest and worst form of oppression in the world. For example, Liberal feminism views paid labor as liberating for women and a progressive step toward gender equality. Radicals do not view paid labor as liberating. For them, women endure dual labor of salaried work and unpaid housework. The family remains patriarchal, and men benefit from the paid earnings of women and the domestic labor they provide.

  • Approach to Solution

7 Differences between Radical Feminism and Liberal Feminism

According to radical feminism, gender equality is possible through a radical restructuring of society to eradicate patriarchy. On the other hand, liberal feminism does not seek to restructure society. The liberals’ approach aims to work within the system to integrate women into the social structure and make society more responsive to women’s rights.

  • Individualism versus Sisterhood

Liberal feminism bases its philosophy on the principle of individualism, where all humans have equal moral worth with entitlement to equal treatment despite their sex, color, age, race, or religion. Therefore, it focuses on individuals’ right to fight for their rights instead of fighting collectively as women. Radical feminists claim that stress mounted on “personhood’ makes it more challenging for females to reason and collaborate as brought together by their gender identity – “sisterhood.” They fear that individualism allows the male gender to impose their attributes and aspirations onto females.

  • Militant versus Reformist

Radical feminism exhibits a more militant approach toward attaining gender equality. It aims to eradicate patriarchy or male supremacy from every sphere of society. Furthermore, radicals do not believe that changes in the law can bring equality because the system is innately skewed favor of men. Liberal feminism does not aim to obliterate the distinction between political and personal. It pursues a reformist approach. Liberals believe that opening public life to equal competition between both genders is crucial – it ensures equal political rights, the right to education, to vote and pursue a career, and more.

  • Biological Determinism

Liberal feminists believe in biological determinism – women and men exhibit biological differences. Women are naturally suitable for specific responsibilities like childbearing, taking care of the home, and more. Radicals believe that biological roles such as childbearing cause women to skip work (maternity leave), so women fail to attain promotions as fast as men.

  • Focus on Cause of Gender Inequality

Radical feminism tends to focus on the root cause of gender inequality and gender-based issues, which is patriarchy. Radicals are angry against patriarchy and the system and want a total overhaul of the political, legal, societal, and social organization associated with patriarchy. Liberals do not focus on the cause of gender inequality and believe that patriarchy is oppressive to both genders. They recognize the problem of patriarchy but believe there is a need to change that through political, legal, and social organizations.

 

 

 

Brexit and GMO Farming in Great Britain

Genetically modified crops are strictly regulated in Europe. However, Brexit might bring a change to the old continent. Since Great Britain is leaving the European Union, there will be more opportunities for the local farmers to grow GMO products. GMO farming is beneficial for the climate, and it is significantly cheaper than the conventional or organic farming. Great Britain will take a huge leap forward in terms of domestic agriculture.

The response from the government

As soon as the Brexit occurred, the government started to discuss the future of the domestic agriculture. Since trading with the European Union might be a bit difficult in the future, the focus should be on growing their own products and distributing it locally. George Eustice, the Minister of Agriculture told the press that Brexit will certainly create more opportunities for loosening up the GMO regulations and modifying the existing laws which are prohibiting the mass production of genetically modified crops. However, the government will be examining the results from various scientific researches and change the law accordingly.

The possible risk?

Even though European Union did allow genetically modified maize to be cultivated within its borders, farmers seemed to remain indecisive. Yes, there are plenty of controversies revolving around genetically modified organisms, but there are so many studies out there which prove that they are not dangerous for either humans or animals.

Additionally, growing genetically modified crops will increase the profits and yield more products. Plus, it is saving the environment because the usage of pesticides is reduced. The opposition in GB claims that growing genetically modified crops next to organic farms will have a negative impact on the organic produce.

Peter Melchett who works for Soil Association opposes genetically modified crops and states that contamination is very possible, which might lead to low quality organic foods that will be filled with various chemicals brought over there by insects and other animals. Once it happens, local farmers will be at loss. Plus, the organic food would be imported from the mainland Europe.

USDA did conduct a couple of researches that dealt directly with cross contamination and discovered that the interaction between GMO and organic farms is pretty small. Surely, it is hard to control the process of porno gratis pollination, but the scientists couldn’t find any direct signs of GMO contamination on the organic fruits and vegetables. Therefore, GMO and organic fields can safely exist side by side.

The future of farming in Great Britain

The Ministry of Agriculture is still very open to suggestions and they look forward to discussing all the possibilities that might be beneficial to both farmers and consumers. The fact that they will not be a part of European Union certainly does open various doors for genetically modified crops. Great Britain might become the first European country that fully accepted and legitimized the GMO products. Surely, the government will be working closely with the scientists and researchers who will provide them with enough information in order to make the right choice. All in all, this can spark the discussion all over the continent and we might even see a change of hearts in Europe.

The Passing of GMO Labeling Law: The Results So Far

When Obama passed a GMO labeling law in July, it became the first bill of this kind in history. The law itself was two years in the making, it will follow Vermont’s GMO labeling law and it will go country-wide. The law received mixed opinions by both politicians and the public that demanded more rigid and strict rules. To put it as shortly as possible, GMO labeling law requires some sort of insignia, whether a label or a QR code stating that a product contains GMO ingredients.

Vermont is the first US state that passed a GMO labeling law. Every company is required to disclose all the data about the possible GMO ingredients in each they sell in this state. Even though this law is exactly what the public wants (as a matter of fact, 90% or surveyed citizens clearly stated that they wish to know if there are GMO ingredients in the foods they are buying), it seems that Vermont’s GMO labeling law has a couple of flaws.

QR Codes

QR codes weren’t a part of the labeling law in the first place but Obama’s revised version supports them and now QR codes are allowed as well. So in order to find out all the ingredients in a product, you have to scan a code with your smartphone. This decision received a lot of criticism from the public due to the fact that not everyone has time to scan each product separately and it can get a bit tiresome. It is a waste of time for many shoppers and despite the general presumption, smartphones are not so common.

So the GMO labeling law became almost useless even though it was a great idea in the beginning. Transparency is very important when it comes to the relationship between GMO products and the consumers. The United States already produces large quantities of GMO foods that are sold on a daily basis. The research of the GMO ingredients that can be found in certain foods did not show any negative results, but people are still a bit wary about the genetically modified foods they might be consuming.

This distrust for the certain food manufacturing companies comes from the fear of the unknown. So in order to gain more support from the public, food manufacturers should disclose the ingredients regardless of their origin. This is the best way to teach the public about GMO foods and show them there is nothing to fear. Believe it or not, a vast number of people are not even aware they consume GMO products every single day and they might even claim that they eat organic foods. Education of the consumers is everything if we want to move on and develop more efficient and pest resistant food products that will be cheaper and easier to produce, and full disclosure is crucial. So GMO labeling law looks like something that will aid this mission. However, it seems that the public is not in favor of QR codes, so we should simply wait and see how many companies will use them on their products.

The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops

The potential of genetically engineered crops is manifold. This occurs even in the midst of the dwindling effects it has on the resource base thus promising a significant increase in productivity hence promoting sustainability regarding food supply as well as the provision of raw materials for the rapidly growing population. Genetically modified crops give rise to environmental benefits that play a central role in alleviating poverty through income generation especially in developing countries. It is through genetically modified foods that there is a nutritional enhancement in the plants hence offering a new platform through which human health is enhanced.

In spite of the contributions that are realized through the introduction of GM crops, its development has aroused lots of opposition. This is particularly high in Europe, and the effect has spilled over to other parts of the globe. This is through such aspects as trade regulations, media coverage as well as the establishment of outreach groups that intend to lobby anti-biotechnology usage. The key driving forces for these issues is the concern over the environment, health risks as well as social implication effects. For example, there is fear that consumption of GM crops and foods derived from them having the potential to undermine traditional knowledge systems, especially in developing countries.

Regarding economics, the increase in privatization of crop improvement research has aroused possible monopolization of the seed market and thus causing adverse exploitation of the farmers in the region. This is because GM crops are associated with novel possibilities that have triggered research dealing with aspects of the economy and policy making. Through this article, there is a clear outline of the economic factors that relate to GM crops.

Status of GM crops

Commercialization of GM crops
The commercial application of the GM crops goes way back to the mid-1990s and has then spread across the globe. According to reports released in 2008, GM crops were grown in over 25 countries in over 120 ha of land. However, the US registered the highest share of GM crops accounting for 50 % of total ha across the globe. Despite the fact that there is a significant increase in approval of GM technologies in some countries in Europe, the commercialization of the GM crops is still negligible. This is because of a low level of public acceptance as well as other regulatory framework factors that are not favorable.
Today, there is a limited number of technologies that are commercialized including herbicide tolerance in soybeans among others. GM maize also has been introduced to confer herbicide tolerance as well as resistance against insects. The resistance against insects is based on a wide range of genes that spring from Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium. It is these Bt genes that play a central role in the control of corn rootworm, corn borers as well as other stem borers.

Micro-level impact of the first generation GM plants
Many of the studies that focus on the micro-level impact of GM plants are currently based on random sample surveys as well as a comparison of adopter performances with non-adopter GM crops. However, this kind of comparison is characterized by selectivity bias. Additionally, its adoption may give rise to an overestimation of technological impacts and underestimation of farmers’ impact under certain conditions. Bacillus thuringiensis technology is a promising platform for control of pests in the environment. Some of the approaches that are geared towards addressing selectivity bias using econometric means include;

Empirical evidence: Bt GMO plants do not entirely get rid of the need for sprays against insects. This is because there still crop damage that occurs. The reason for this is based on the fact that Bt toxins have a high specificity for certain species of pests while insect pests are not affected at all. There is evidence that insecticide-reducing effect, as well as yield increasing the effect, is observed on the international front with high scores reported in Argentina and India.
Conventional cotton farmers often use very low levels of insecticides and thus effectiveness in controlling pests is small. However, the use of pesticides in India is higher. This suggests that there is a yield effect of the Bt technology is influenced by the quantity and quality of insecticides used hence control of damage on cotton. Additionally, the resistance to insecticides, as well as the timing of spraying the GM crops, is also to be considered xxx.

Econometric estimates: using different models, this confirms the net effect on insecticide reduction and increasing effect on yield in using the Bt technology. This is evident through the demonstration that part of the impact variation that was seen in some countries like India was because of integration of the Bt gene in a few cotton varieties that did not suit the location. This is because the positive impact of this gene was undermined by the adverse effect of the germ-plasm.
This indicates that the full benefits of GM plants can be realized through the insertion of the target gene in a wide range of varieties that are locally adaptable. This is the approach that is used in reducing the occurrence of selectivity issues as well as problems associated with endogeneity.

Gross margin effect: farmers that have been shown to adopt Bt technologies have benefited from the economic advantage that is related to female entrepreneurs saving insecticides as well as high yields. This means that on average the gross margin gains are estimated to be very high in the case of such crops as GM Bt maize and GM Bt cotton. Additionally, the cost of seeds is much lower in developing countries as opposed to other regions of the world. This is attributed to the weak aspects that relate to intellectual property rights, seed production, subsidies as well as other price interventions that are set by the government. Additionally, other factors such as agricultural policies play a role in determining the gross margin effects.

Conclusion
Aspects that relate to economics play a pivotal role in determining novel ways through which social benefits can be maximized. This means that more effort is to be directed towards quantification of possible indirect effects of GM plants and the outcome it has on health and the surrounding environment. This is through a significant contribution made by economists in designing efficient regulations and innovative systems. This could finally lead to advanced levels of income generated from the sale of GM crops.

Canola and GM Canola plant

Introduction

Canola refers to a rapeseed and s scientifically referred to as Brassica napus. This is an oilseed plant that is cultivated for the production of high-quality oil that is used in many foods such as Margarine as well as cooking oil. Additionally, it is canola that is used as a seed meal because it contains high quality and quantity of fiber that is left after processing. T is the high protein content that makes Canola cultivated thus promoting its value as a stock feed. Canola plant has been grown in the Southern grain belt regions of Australia since the late 1960s. However, recently in the year 2010 and 2011, over 450 thousand tons of Canola was produced with a gross value of over 300 million US dollars. It is also important to note that Canola possesses beneficial effects on wheat by significant reduction of soil-borne diseases. This only happens when the plant is integrated as part of the crop rotation crops. This is because the wheat that is produced after canola has an increase of yield by over 20 % as compared to planting wheat following wheat.

GM Canola

Two genetically engineered canola varieties have been developed so far in Australia. These include the Roundup Ready canola and InVigor canola. The Roundup canola variety was produced by the Monsanto Company while the InVigor canola variety was introduced by the Bayer CropSciences Company. For purposes of effectiveness, each one of these varieties has been engineered to confer tolerance to specific herbicides. This is under a defined crop management system.
Roundup Ready GM Canola confers tolerance to glyphosate while the InVigor GM canola demonstrates tolerance to herbicide glufosinate. The company trials of growing these plants in the US have shown that GM canola that is produced through a specified crop management system proves to have a superior control over weeds as compared to current plant practices. Additionally, there is evidence that the amount of yield for these genetically engineered canola plants have increased and thus boosting the management savings that is earned from its growth. The herbicides that are utilized in controlling weeds for these crops have been shown to be favorable to the environment as opposed to the herbicides that are used on the traditional/conventional canola that is a bit harsh.

This means that the control of weeds particularly derived from canola Brassicaceae family that are characterized by broad leaves through the application of herbicides during the planting season plays a role in determining the quality and the quantity of the grain that is produced. This is based on the fact that weeds often compete with the canola plant for space and nutrients in the soil as well as other factors such as moisture and sunlight. Because of these reasons, there is a possibility that the yield that is lost due to weed is significant in the canola crop. Additionally, there is increased chance that the cross contamination factors will pose a significant effect on the seeds during harvesting. These factors are taken under control by the growing of GM canola that is resistant to weeds by possessing herbicide resistant genes.

The growth of the GM canola for commercial purposes first took place in 2008 in Victoria and NSW as well as WA in 2010. The most important thing to bear in mind is the fact that Roundup Ready canola is the only GM canola that is available today. Because of this reason, its approval by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) has been done. Based on a study that was conducted in Victoria, there was evidence that over 190 farmers in the region planted over 36000 ha of land in 2010 for canola. This paved way for the growth and increase of GM canola that occupied an area of over 15000 ha alone in 2012. There was a high level of yield in the growth of GM canola as demonstrated through the satisfaction that the farmers had. This is because of improved control of weeds as opposed to the conventional varieties of canola.

According to scientists, there is evidence that GM canola express a purpose for processing oils for consumption by humans. This is because the GM canola plant is characterized by ease of growing as well as low price. It has been the efforts of the food companies since the 1970s to try and produce canola that is low in fats to reduce the levels of heart disease-related cases. To achieve this canola was the target plant. However, conventional canola plant has high levels of erucic acid that is poisonous to both animals and human beings. This is because of the high levels of erucic acid that causes lesions in the heart. GM Canola, which has low levels of erucic acid, gave a brilliant alternative while supplementing it with elevated levels of nutrients such as omega six fatty acids beneficial for human porno.

Conclusion
Since the introduction of the genetically engineered canola varieties that are resistant to such components as glyphosate, glufosinate, imidazolinones, as well as bromoxynil, a wide range of benefits, have been realized. These benefits include; a significant rise of GM canola that is resistant to herbicides in the market thus contributing to the rise of market shares by over 70 % in Canada compared to conventional canola. The adoption of this plant that is genetically modified has grown across the globe to regions where it thrives well. This is because of its ease in growing and maintenance on the farm, the decrease in the control of weeds due to its resistance as well as high yield that is realized. This has, in turn, promoted the significant increase in the amount of financial returns as a function of the high yield, decrease in cost of herbicides as well as reduced docking. Despite the difficulty the management of the GM canola varieties, practices such as crop rotation and its widespread adoption have been very much beneficial to the growers of the plant.

The truth about GM crops

There are great truths that underlie the growth and the consumption of GMO plants and the food that are derived from them. In the major GMO-growing nationalities, there are growing concerns that continue to arise about the impact of the GM plants on the environment as well as social consequences. This is especially the case for the crops that demonstrate tolerance to pesticides as well as resistance to insects. This often happens in the Southern region of America where GM plants are grown for the global production of foods as well as the unique impact it has on biodiversity. Currently, the government in the US has launched an investigation into the results of monopolies in the GM seeds. However, in this article, we will focus on some truths about GM plants concerning pesticides, yields, soil carbon levels, and the threat of GM trees and agrofuels.

The rise in the use of pesticides on GM plants
According to research reports across the globe, there is a significant increase of pesticides that are being used on GM crops. This is because of the development of pesticide resistant weeds that increases the use a cocktail of herbicides applied on GM crops. This is the reason for increased levels of pollution on the environment as well as the impact on the human health. For instance, in the regions of Southern Cone, over 200 million liters of biocides were reported to be applied to soy plants and 350 million liters applied on GM soy.
Additionally, there has been an eruption of a controversial issue in Argentina regarding the effects of glyphosate use on the development of the embryo. The solution that is currently anticipated on the weed resistance is increased use of herbicides as they continue to develop more crops that are genetically engineered to confer tolerance to a wide range of herbicides. The increased planting of GMO plants is making it difficult for people to feed themselves in the future due to the eradication of indigenous.

GMO crops are fashioned to increase yield
Some of the claims that are made by the GM industry are that GM plants reduce pesticide use as opposed to the statements raised in the previous point above. Additionally, it is believed that GM plants increase yield. This means that they have a role to play in handling the situation of climate change. The biotechnology industry is therefore currently taking advantage of the climate change negotiations made by the UN to make sure that GM crops are considered as mitigation to the issues of climate change. However, what we have to realize is that none of the plants that have been developed this far can confer a trait that directs the increase of yield for the plant. Additionally, no existing evidence is in support of the claims that GMO plants possess the ability to metabolize carbon.

GMO plants storage of carbon in soil and reduces fertilizer consumption
There are wide ranges of arguments that are made by biotechnological industries concerning the ability of the GM crops to lessen the loss of carbon from the soil. This is through plowing of land where the crops will be planted. However, tilling of land is a traditional practice that was designed to enhance water and soil conservation. This was developed even before the existence of the genetically engineered crops. It is the introduction and use of herbicides tolerant plants that have undermined the sustainability of the land tillage system. This is due to increase of pesticides used and the compaction of the soil as a result of heavy farm machinery.
Recent research results indicate that no tilling method can sequester more carbon than the conventional methods of plowing. This means that biotechnology industries Holy Grail of nitrogen fixing plants that would significantly lead to a decline in the need for artificial fertilizers are not known yet. This is still a theory that is aimed at reducing the need for burning fossil fuel, and hence, a reduction amounting to greenhouse gas emissions. However, this progress is still in its infancy, and the FAO report (2005) states its technical difficulties.

GM trees stores carbon
Currently, there is evidence that GM trees have the ability to store carbon. However, the risk with this type of plant is the complexity that is associated with it and the fact that they occupy significant habitats. Additionally, these plants are characterized by a wide range of interactions. There is also evidence that demonstrates the possibility of cross contaminations taking place in the fields due to aspects of seed dispersal. Additionally, the issue of transgenic sterility proves to be an aspect that is not an option regarding occurrence. This means that the ability of the GM plants to cross the national borders is one of the factors that threaten federal regulations making them insufficient.
Another claim that is made by scientists and the biotechnology industries is that GM crops are the key to improving fuel production. This is an area of GM plant development that is in progress. This is because over 90 percent of the global GM crops grown is being used as animal feeds and fuel instead of food. Additionally, such crops as genetically engineered Roundup Ready soya contribute to high greenhouse gas emission that could hinder this usage as well as contributing to changes in the climatic patterns.

Conclusion
It is evident from this article that genetically modified crops are promising to offer people with the food for the future. However, there is still need for multinational organizations as well as scientists to disclose all the truths about GM plants. This is because, despite its contribution, there are also dangers that are associated with their usage to humans, animals, and to the environment. This is because they have been attributed to contributing to climate change. This means that farming practices have to change radically to meet the challenges of warming the atmosphere. This is not compromising with feeding the population, protection, and restoration of biodiversity, agrofuels as well as services of the ecosystem. The good news is that with the support that is required from the stakeholders, agroecology has so much more to offer!

GMO and the Impact on the Economy

Have you ever wondered about the general effect eliminating GMO foods in the US would have on the economy and the quality of life in that country? A group of scientists and professors had an idea to take a closer look at the consequences that would arise if all GMO seeds and products were eliminated from the States and reached a startling discovery.

Their results were presented to the fellow scientists at International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research in Italy and have reached the rest of the public a couple of weeks ago. Their goal wasn’t to convince anyone that GMO is either good or bad – they simply took a closer look at the aftermath we might be facing and the effect it would have on the country’s economy.

The researchers conducted a thorough examination of the numbers of GMO crops that were planted and produced in 2014. After double checking their numbers and making sure their data is accurate, they ran it through a calculator that is designed to deliver the results of hypothetical changes in agricultural production and the overall impact on the quality of life among US citizens.

The results should raise a concern because in case of eliminating all GMO crops, the general rate of food production would be majorly decreased. The amount of corn that is produced on a yearly basis would decline for 11%, meaning that in order to get the production to the previous level, more than 100,000 hectares of forest should be turned into pastures and corn fields. That would without a doubt have a huge impact on the environment and the surrounding nature.

Besides the changes in the ecosystem of a given area, the gasses emitted in the process of organic production would damage the entire landscape. The greenhouse gas is a dangerous thing and people who are against cultivating and using GMO crops are usually against the greenhouse effect as well. However, you simply cannot have it both ways. Thanks to GMO crops, the emission of the greenhouse gas is much lower than it was a couple of decades ago or so.

If we completely eliminate GMO foods from production, the prices of food in general would skyrocket. The price of corn alone would go up for 28 percent, which is indeed pretty high. That would influence the prices of other products as well, making food more expensive. The cost of living would most certainly change in the United States that is for sure.

The same team of researchers will be continuing their examination of the same subject but in other areas of the world. The Purdue University will fund this project and they will closely inspect the economy of European Union and the possible changes in the identical conditions. GMO crops are not that widespread in Europe as they are in the United States, but we are sure that the results will be surprising.

After Europe, they will move to the Asian countries where GMO crops are more common. We are very excited to see their findings in the future since any research that involves exploration of the subject of GMO crops is thrilling to all of us interested in that field of study. There are so many trials and tests that are underway right now but they usually focus on the short term and long term effects GMO foods have on living organisms. This is the first study that is dealing with the impact on the economy and the quality of life. We are sure that the international research would give us plenty of interesting results that will make us rethink our perspectives.

GMO Plants as an important strategy to adapting climate-smart changes

One of the greatest worries about increased temperatures is the corn impact it has on Agricultural practices. This is because heat waves are perceived to have an impact on the atmospheric humidity through the creation of a drought condition. In the long-term, this extends into reducing the amount of water that is in the soil, rivers, and lakes among corn water sources. Another under worry about the high temperatures is that relating to the prospects of food crops bidding their natural habitats a good bye. According to expert agronomists, if the temperatures rise beyond a certain threshold, there will be anticipated a decline of yield significantly.

However, climate change is not a good thing as people may want to describe it. This is because of the problems that come along with it apart from the high temperatures that exceed the tolerant limits of various species of crops. The alteration in the normal patterns of the weather has a great impact on the systems of agriculture in certain areas. Similarly, variability in the climatic patterns may lead to draft that gives rise to floods during seasons that would otherwise be dry under normal conditions. This causes dryness during wet seasons and thus affects the crops that have been planted. This leads to the crippling of crops for long periods of time.

One of the ways in which this can be taken care of is through adaptation of the genetically engineered crops species that are tolerant to harsh environmental conditions. This means that GMO plants can be produced so that they can withstand drought, floods, extreme temperatures as well as novel breeds of pests. This serves as a promising area that can help in salvaging the extreme changes in the climatic patterns that hit hard the agriculturally productive regions across the globe. This requires employing biotechnology techniques that will help in promoting the crop adaptation.

GM crops in stress conditions
The effects of the alteration in the weather have been attributed as one of the leading causes of changes in the soil conditions. This often leads to toxic salt levels in the ground that are not favorable for crops. In Australia, a gene has been identified in Wheat to play a central role in marker-assisted breeding has promised to offer great avenues of taking care of the salt concentrations in the soil. This is by conferring salt tolerance traits in the GM crops. Based on a report given by the FAO (2010), there is a possibility that the use of biotechnology based techniques can lead to the salt tolerant crops through genetic engineering. This is after a long period of 10 years of genetic research utilizing transgenic plants to alter the salt tolerance. The value and success of this particular approach are anticipated in the filed experiments that are on-going in Australia. The success of this approach is one of the greatest techniques of GMO drought tolerant crops and thus promoting the climate-smart farming technology.

GMO maize, MON87460 to feed people in droughts
There have been significant efforts put in place by the genetic engineers in converting crops so that they can efficiently use carbon dioxide and water. This means that significant conversion of the metabolism of the plants from carbon 3 to carbon four metabolisms has to occur. The carbon four plants that include maize, as well as sugarcane, have a more efficient way of using their water and carbon dioxide. This means that successful genetic engineering of drought tolerance genes has currently been found impossible because of the major changes that have to be made in the metabolic cycle.

In some parts of Africa, Australia, and Europe, there is evidence of plants growing in the absence of moisture after prolonged periods of droughts. Recently, there has been the release of maize that is tolerant to droughts by Monsanto. The maize is referred to as MON87460, and there is anticipation for the marketing consent release for this batch of corn. It is under conditions that have limited amounts of water that the grain yield for the corn loss was reduced significantly when compared to the conventional maize. However, just like the regular corn, MON87460 maize still suffers from loss of yield especially in conditions where the amount of water is limited. This often has been reported to happen during the stage of flowering and the grainfill period. This is because it is during this time that the yields of maize are greatly influenced by their sensitivity to stress conditions. Because of this, the kernel development is disrupted significantly.

Additionally, the maize grain yield of the MON87460 maize has the potential to reach zero level especially under conditions of severe water deficiency. The most important factor to note is that the information that is available from the Monsanto is not inclusive of the evidence that indeed the GMO maize MON87460 will thrive in conditions of limited water.

Currently, there are researches taking place in France on a wide range of crops that have the ability to withstand inhospitable climatic conditions. This includes research on Grapes that are designed to fight against common environmental viruses as well as the wheat in Australia striving to produce foods that have lower glycemic levels. Additionally, other studies are those focusing on cassavas that are resistant to ceratin viruses and bananas that contain high levels of iron. All these studies strive at ensuring that we have GM plants that are climate smart and can assure the future of food security.

Conclusion
A wide range of miracle GMO plants that are capable of thriving in marginal lands is the focus of most researches today. This is to ensure that there is the development of genetically engineered crops that are tolerant to abiotic stresses that include high salt concentrations, droughts among other factors. However, in as much as these promises are highly manipulative of the common farmers, the results of which are still at the level of mere speculations. If we have successful genetic engineering of pants that will confer drought resistance traits, then it will be a happy future for all the people across the globe. This is because it means sufficient food and thus food security. However, there is still the challenge of making significant alterations to the metabolism of the plant.

Issues associated with GMO plants

Introduction
It is within the mission set for 2017 that genetically modified crops have negative impacts on the ecosystem and the entire biodiversity. However, it is quite sad that most of the multinational organizations such as Monsanto do not have the best interests of humankind at heart. It is important to take note that other bodies such as the FDA ensure that the safety of the GM plants and the foods produced from them are safe for human consumption. This means that the foods that are generated from GMO plants have to possess a high standard of safety equal or greater than that we obtain from plants that are bred using the traditional techniques. However, despite all these efforts that have been put in place by safety bodies, there are still concerns involving GMO plants. These include:

– Contamination of farmlands and natural habitats
Genetically engineered plants have been reported to play a crucial role in threatening contamination of the surrounding farming areas as well as natural plant home. This is the central reason why there is low biodiversity among crops that are bred for food as well as the reason for monoculture. Genetically engineered plants often have the ability to adapt better to the environmental conditions and thus increasing their capacity to outcompete plants that occur naturally. The central mandate is not to contribute to loss but rather offer significant support to guided land and climate analysis to ensure that GMO plants are prevented with buffer zones across fields.

– Seed patenting
The issue of seed patenting of genetically modified plants is a growing problem in research as well as agriculture as a whole. This is because when a given formula is obtained for GMO plants, it is the multinational companies that patent and make this commercial. For example, when the strain of Bacillus thuringiensis cotton was produced, Monsanto patented this, and they had control over 95 % of the cotton marketed in India. This sort of monopoly has contributed to the dramatic increase in the prices of cotton leaving the farmers in debt and thus unsustainability of their livelihoods.

– Cross-contamination
This patenting and commercialization of the GMO plants has been the main reason for cross contamination of seeds and thus this problem is passed on to the farmers by selling those contaminated seeds. This means that if the farmer has the GMO plant in their possession and has not planted it but for some reason their field is contaminated, then the lawsuit will be on those that have the patent. However, in case the farmer steals the GMO crop patented, then they are subject to facing a lawsuit. This means that farmers have to be sensitized on aspects that relate to the cross-contamination of GMO plants. However, the current problem is that the multinational companies that are marketing the seeds ensure that the farmers do not keep the seeds for the following year, and this renders the farmers in debt. This is because they have to constantly increase their yield to afford the seeds for planting. A case study in India reveals that most farmers each year find themselves taking loans to provide the seeds that are sold at exorbitantly high prices.

– Destruction of seeds that once existed
The fact that most of the laws have illegalized farmers having seeds from their companies through the seed patenting and commercialization aspect, there is a significant issue of gradual destruction of the naturally occurring seeds. This is through the competition and cross-contamination of GM plants sold by the multinational companies. This is based on the fact that in case the crops that are of one genetic makeup are subjected to failure in a given agricultural year, then the yield goes down, and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers is threatened.

– Political and economic structures
The issues that I have discussed above concerning the GM plants are often influenced by political and economic problems that are linked to the creation, production and distribution of GM plants. Today, genetically engineered plants have not been very useful to small holder farmers. This is because the pressure that is exerted by biotechnological companies, as well as agribusinesses, is quickly killing the existence of small farms. This is because there is a threat that small farms produce more foods than large farms. Additionally, it is the small farms that have the ability of successfully introducing sustainable practices as opposed to the case of industrial farms. This is the reason why the mission set for 2017 is in support of biotech downscaling. This is geared towards encouraging the production as well as the distribution of a wide range of GMO plants that meets the needs of farmers across different ecosystems.

Conclusion
We require a healthy agricultural system that integrates GM plants, and laws have to be streamlined by the government to regulate the activities that are carried out by biotechnological companies. It is these regulations that serve as the hope hindering monopolies and abuse of farmers that are not to blame for issues of cross contaminations. Additionally, there is a need to alter legislations that are in support of industrial farming. For example, the New Deal made in the 1930s gave rise to a set of programs in the US that guaranteed fair pricing of corn instead of permitting free market pricing. This means that the poor farmers that have labored in the farm for their produce did not have the continually increase their yield to stay out of debt like the case today. This means that the system made sure that there was fairness in the pricing of their crops to encourage small farmers as well as promote biodiversity. If this political and economic structure were to be adopted today, then farmers would be encouraged to increase crop biodiversity. This will prevent farming practices that promote planting of a single strain of GMO plants in a huge truck of land. It is these policies that promise to benefit developing countries that rely on agriculture for the most parts of their economy and livelihoods.