mickey疯了

Manyplants we eat today are a result of genetic modifications that would never occur in nature. Scientists have long been altering the genes of food crops, to boost food production and to make crops more pest-, drought- and cold-resistant.

Proponents of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, say that farmers who grow these crops are able to use fewer environmentally damaging pesticides. The increased yields of GMO crops, they also argue, are essential to feeding the world's growing population. And proponents say that numerous studies have shown that genetically modified foods are safe to eat.

Critics, however, say the claims of those benefits are overblown. They say farmers growing GMO crops have actually increased their use of herbicides. And widespread use of the crops, they say, have also led to an increase in herbicide- and pesticide-resistant weeds and insects. And, they argue, there is still no scientific consensus on the long-term safety of these foods.

Four scientists recently took on those questions in an Intelligence Squareddebate, facing off two against two on the motion, "Genetically Modify Food." In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

Before the debate, the audience at the Kaufman Music Center in New York voted 32 percent in favor of the motion, with 30 percent against and 38 percent undecided. Afterward, 60 percent agreed with the motion, and 31 percent disagreed — making the side arguing in favor of the motion the winners of this debate.