# data[].attributes.body
Pamela had a lot of really good and strong arguments. For a moment I thought: wow thats amazing, but after I realized she had nothing bad about the GMO and GEO's. Evertihing have downsides. I think the big problem of these is, the diversity of strains will be limited. Big faktories or companies will sell the seed and request what they want, because they are the only ones who sell this seeds. The farmers will no longer have a free selection.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Pamela is right that the GMO's are safer than the experiments with mutations by radiation and chemicals. But I think a lot of companies will use the power in their favor.

I don't know what you are thinking, but will GMO's realy reduce the malnutrition? She said the live of thousends of children could be saved. But can GMO's also feed the next generation and the generation afther that? Or will they save a thousend lives. But when the rich countries havn't anymore enough to eat, will we let thenthousend children die later...?

# data[].attributes.body
Pamela Ronald spoke only of the positive side of GEO's. I mean the video which showed the rice was actually amazing! However, I think the biggest problem is at the end all the seeds are coming from two or three big fabrics which have the opportunity to produce GEO's. At this point we aren't anyomore independent farmers (it's nowadays already a huge problem). The other problem is that we're fighting against the symptoms and not against the causes which means that we'll have another problem at some point. We could see this at the eggplants, they could solve this problem but what's next year or the year after? We need to work with the nature and our environment and not with a technology we don't really understand.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about the video (Michael Köpff)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about the video (Michael Köpff)

# data[].attributes.body
While I was watching the video I was firstly overwhelmed by the impressive progress they've made by genetic engineering. But after some time I felt that this is kind of a advertising speech for GEO's.. It sounds to good to be true.
Yeah sure, there are a lot of benefits to it, but for me it's just fighting the symptons and not the cause. As she explained in the beginning, her husband uses a huge variety of crops to prevend from pests and diseases. And this is how we finally should deal with this kind of problems, not to make the farmers in third world even more dependet to the big companies like bayer-monsanto or dupont or whatsoever. The examples she mentioned where they shared the seeds for free.. come on we all know that the control of seeds is not in the hand of farmers anymore, unless we teach them how they can minimalize pests und diseases by applying ecologic and sustainable food production systems.
(I totally agree with Samuel Dürrenmatt, he has made a great statement!!)

# data[].attributes.body
I didn't know and hadn't expected, that genetic engineered plants are so dominant over others and could help so many people. It's nice to hear that these plants save much lives, but I think that she spoke just from the positive side of this genes. There must be a downside of this big modification, which was made in the nature. For example are the real profiteers of this topic the big companies, which just see the money behind...

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Domenica Jauch)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Domenica Jauch)

# data[].attributes.body
Pamela Roland has a lot good arguments for GEO's, but she only talks about the topic in her view. When she said that we should focus on how we can help children grow up healthy GEO's are the only solution for her. In my opinion Geo's are the easiest solution. With them we don't have to change anything on our eating or producing habits, some firms can make a lot of money and we help the poor. But there are many other and I think better options to solve the problem of malnutrition. For example we can use all the food we produce to feed people and not animals. Moreover I think it's risky to say that there hasn't been a case of harm to human health or the environment by GEO's. All the vegetables and fruits she toke for an example, where GEO's has been successfully used, are only left in the treated form. The original form is almost or no more available.

# data[].attributes.body
It was nice to hear a lot of arguments for GEO. The most important point is, that without GEO so much insecticids and other worse things have to be used and farmers and children die of the consequences. I think, eating such a product isn't a problem, because genes are genes, I don't know what's the difference between good and bad genes. Probably, if the genes go into other plants in the nature, it can create unintended problems.
It's similar to the G5 topic.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thought about enginereed food (Chanelle Geiser)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thought about enginereed food (Chanelle Geiser)

# data[].attributes.body
Pamela Ronald spoke of the positive sides, it's true that science brings a lot of good things but there are also risks. Until now each time we found a solution to a problem we created a new problem in principle even worse. We will not end up going too far and that will have very serious sonsequences.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Pamela Ronald is not wrong in these reflections on genetic transformation. This is a good technological breakthrough that goes with our future even if I'm not necessarily in favour of it. After rice with more vitamin A is really interesting to help people with vitamin A deficiency. But what I wasn't afraid of is that it has a resistance that sets in at the level of pests or parasites. She also says that there hasn't been any risk on us for more than 40 years but there is some disease that we can't find out where it comes from! Isn't it still a bit because of this? The technological progress makes us make a lot of progress but wouldn't it also have limits!?....

# data[].attributes.body
First, I think that Pamela Ronald’s point of view is very interesting. I do not hear a lot of positive things about this topic. I think she had good arguments, like you can solve problem of malnutrition with the golden rice for example. GMO can be a solution against poverty and other problems. But on the other side, I think we should not forget the negative aspects of GMO/GEO and that we have to be carful with those. We are playing with nature and this can be dangerous as we don’t know what impact it could have at long-term.

# data[].attributes.body
First of all, I was surprised to hear, i think nearly for the first time, someone who speaks positively about this topic. Pamela Ronald spoke about a lot of interesting things. I can absolutely understand her explications and support her for what she is telling. I think also that it is a big possibility to safe lives. But we should never forget the risk associated with it.

# data[].attributes.body
The speech of Pamela Ronald made me change the way I considered engineered food. Before I listening to her, I was a bit skeptical about GEO, because I was scared about the consequences it could have on the human health. Her arguments made me change point of view, since GEO also can have some positive effects. In fact Ms. Ronald  gave some examples, which showed me that GEO can save lifes in  less developed countries. So I think, that even if GEO could have some negative effects on the human health, hey would be less dangerous than starving. For that reason I think we should consider GEO as an alternative to feed more people and reduce malnutrition.

# data[].attributes.body
First of all, I was surprised to hear, i think nearly for the first time, someone who speaks positively about this topic. Pamela Ronald spoke about a lot of interesting things. I can absolutely understand her explications and support her for what she is telling. I think also that it is a big possibility to safe lives. But we should never forget the risk associated with it.

# data[].attributes.body
The reason, why she want to support the GMO food is nice. With a small change she can save a lot of lives. But i don't know if the GMO food is safe. And i don't know if the GMO food is not more expensive than the normal food. Because the researches must be financed. The GMO food can save lives, but if it is not as sure as normal food it can also take a lot of lives. I don't know what i want to say about this food. The idea to saves lives is awesome but i don't know if the recherche are already fished. And if all test are done and looks good. To say that the should publish the results of the recherche. So i didn't chance my views. If they shows the results maybe.

# data[].attributes.body
A pretty good aspect she was talking about was the thing with the golden rise. It was an point of view I don't really thought about. It's a useful way to optimise our food and help other people. If we have the opportunities to help, we should. I like also her scientific way of speaking, she was talking about facts and no ethical questions. Humans have done a lot of studing to get this technology, so why we shouldn't use it?
The disadvantage of all this is, that we couldn't know what are the impacts on environement, animals, humans and plants. Because it's something not natural and I think everything doing not directly be nature has one day an impact. If the impact is positiv or negativ we can't know now.

# data[].attributes.headline
Toughts about engineering food (Micaela Jenni)

# data[].attributes.subject
Toughts about engineering food (Micaela Jenni)

# data[].attributes.body
I was very impressed by the video and I was not really aware of the genetic modification in food. Like the plant geneticist said genetic modification help farmers to grow rice that is still alive after flooded for 18 days. In addition, genes from viruses and bacteria can be used to make plants resistant on illness or pests.
I think this tow example from genetic modification shows that it’s an important thing. The genetic modification has a positive effect on people's health and supports sustainable food production. On the other hand, the plant geneticist spoke only about the good results. So, I wonder a little is there nothing bad? For example, I could image that plants can not only become resistant on illness or pests but also, against good things, like the decomposition of the plant in hums.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about enginereed food (Milena Bosshard)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about enginereed food (Milena Bosshard)

# data[].attributes.body
The plantgeneticist Pamela Ronald told in an emotinal and fascinating way. She showed us many good benefits and it seems that GEO is the only way to save us from all the appraching problems. However, she cached me for a moment.

But now, after some time I'm wondering if GEO is the best solution. She just explained the good points of GEO. In my opinion it can be credible without showing the negative aspects.

I'm partly agree with the aspect, that GEO seed helps poor people. Having said that GMO seeds often can't multipy by the farmer himself. So farmers will be dependent on large biotechnical corporations. In conclusion, whilst we research further in GEO, we also should keep going with alternative methods.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about enginereed food (Elena Domon)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about enginereed food (Elena Domon)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Pamela Ronald when she says, that the engineering food is a solution to feed the growing word population but she doesn't talk about the negative impacts that means at long-term. It is important that all people have enough food but modify genes and make them more disease resistent for example isn't in my opinion the right solution. It's relatively difficult to know how will these artificial modifications impact the nature : animals, plants and our health as well. I think, the nature can give us a lot but we don't have to manipulate the "system" so much. However the engineering food has like many other experiments and researchs advantages and incovenients as well.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about the TED talk "The case for engineering food" (Justine Baechler)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about the TED talk "The case for engineering food" (Justine Baechler)

# data[].attributes.body
First of all, I must say that I was happy to hear some good things about GEO's because until now, it was not really the fact...
In fact Pamela Ronald talked about three special cases. The first one was the engineered rice, which was more resistant than the conventional rice. This is a very important aspect, when we know how much rice is eaten a year. The second thing that I remember is the genetically modified rice to contain a precursor of the vitamin A. The scientist were searching for that because of the huge problem of vitamin A defiency in some countries. They have found the "gold rice", which could save a lot of children. The third and last thing was the papaya, which was resistant to one disgusting maggot. This last one was found by an hiwaian man. All those things are really great but I think that it would be interesting to hear about some bad apects of the GMO's or GEO's so that we could have our own opinion of the topic.
There are a lot of things that we don't really know (effects on the nature, the biodiversity, our health when it's the cas for food,...) because it is too new to be able to stand back.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Raphaël Mayor)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Raphaël Mayor)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with most of what Pamela Ronald said.
I do think modern technology can help us farming with better result. But I do not think this modern technology is used wisely today.
First, I don't think we should modify the DNA of living being too much, because no one knows what all these modifications will give us in a hundred year. The only ideas we have of a post-biotechnlogic world are from Hollywood...
Second, all the biotechnology research is hold by a few firms which are working for their own interest and clearly not for the sake of humanity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Toughts about engineering food (Sébastien Blanchard)

# data[].attributes.subject
Toughts about engineering food (Sébastien Blanchard)

# data[].attributes.body
I have fast the same opinion as Pamela Ronald. We had to follow the new technologies. It’s sure but I have some fears.

First, I think that it’s dangerous to play with the nature. When we had more resistant crops, we also create resistant bacteria’s and diseases.

Then, I don't think this is the right solution to reduce malnourishment. We should rather reduce food waste.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the statement of Pamela Ronald that GEO’s can save many human lives and reduce the use of plant protection products. But when she talked about the risk, she always said that there have always been many risks in plant breeding. So, my question is: If there are already new methods of plant breeding, why are there no new methods of risk assessment?

# data[].attributes.headline
A questioning view on the business with genetically engineered crops (Samuel Dürrenmatt)

# data[].attributes.subject
A questioning view on the business with genetically engineered crops (Samuel Dürrenmatt)

# data[].attributes.body
The only thing that's important to me is one single thing: To find (from an as objectively as possible point of view) the most suitable solutions, which provides (in the longer term) the optimal price/value strategies.

Like nearly everywhere, there rarely "simple" solutions. In some cases, like for example the mentioned Papyas, it worked quit well, at least till now.

The thing is, that over more ore less long periods of time, the pressure of natural selection is so high, that it will overcome the resistance-gene and make the crops variation again vulnerable for the viral infection (thats the reason why resistance breeding of wheat and other crops against fungies, viruses and others pests never can rest).

In the case of the eggplant there's another aspect to though about it: Like in the Bt-Maize, the production and due to that the amount of Bt-toxin depends on many factors. The amount of minerals in the soil, temperature, moisture, daylengt and solar intensity. And the concentration of the toxin differs between the plants in a field and even inside the parts of the plant. So the protection level is various.

And the question is how much of the Bt-toxin remains on the field and if it can affect other insects or waterorganism due to eluviation.

Regarding to the "golden rice": Due to the "green revolution" which just focused on increasing the amount of calories per person and displaces the original widely prevalent vegetables gardens with also potherbs (which contains a lot of betacarotin, the prestage of vitamin A), the nutrion of the people in the affected regions gets poor in minerals and vitamines.

And now to the "golden rice" itselfs: After storage, only half of the already low beta carotin amount remain and after cooking (betacarotin is heat-intolerable) there is such a small percentage of the initially quantity, that a single carrot contains more than the multiple amount of "golden rice".

And to go further, another crucial issue appears: betacarotin is lipophil. In conclusion: If you have a lack of fat in your nutrition, the biggest part of the Betacarotin in the food leaves the body undigest and useless.

A often unspoken Issue is the patenting of this organisms : While in the majority of first and second world countries the seed-production is  a standardised process, the farmers of the third world took since thousand of years a part of the harvest and kept for the next seedtime and also exchange seeding material between neighbours in the region. The License agreements of the big Agricultural Companies like Bayer-Monsanto forbid to keep back a part of the seeds and also to trade it with others. Further, the price for genetic seeding material is three to four times more expensive than conventional sorts.

For example India: It's true, that Bt-Cotton defended the Crops against Boll weevil bug. But then, a before irrelevant species of White
Flies multiplied extremly and required higher amounts of insecticids with a fraction of the average yield. The bad yields in combination with the extremely high seed prices and the prohibited keepback of the seeds (and therefore the compulsion to buy annualy expensive seeding material from the Agro-Companies) lead to a enormous increase in suicides of farmer, which get trapped in debts.

And the  impact on the small scale agriculture (which still produces more food than the whole mechanised agriculture) alone is one reason, to stay curious (and critical) about the developements in genetic engineering.

Just one more point: Genetically engineered Crops are a "dead end". After patenting a crop with a certain modification, the Companies doesn't have any financial motivation, to change them significantly nor to allow others, to use them for further developement. But this turns them into wasted genetic ressources. And the repression of old and wild variations due to GEO's let the genetic Pool as the fundament of breeding new sorts constantly shrinking.

If we want to adapt to the changing conditions as a result of climate change, we rely on a as big as possible genepool. A genetic broad fundament supports the required flexibility to face the challenges of future generations.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Robin Philipona)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Robin Philipona)

# data[].attributes.body
I personally  agree with Pamela Ronald but I have howewer some fears.
Today lot of people are confronted with hunger and malnutrition, and some of them die every day or contract illness for this reason. GMO/GEO could be a solution to feed correctly most of them, keeping count of needs for each one.  It can help to reduce the use of pesticid and other treatments.
The problem is that we can't look at OGM objectively because it's something new and there is a lot of economical interests behind, so we must analyse every argument to sort out truth from falsehood.

# data[].attributes.headline
my thoughts about engineering food (Laure Perrenoud)

# data[].attributes.subject
my thoughts about engineering food (Laure Perrenoud)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Pamela Ronald about all positives arguments she said. Technology evolve really fast, and we have to evolve in the same time. For me, we also have to see others "conferences" with others professionals about engineering food to take position, because there is probably also "negatives" argument (for me maybe linked to science) that Pamela didn't explain but at the end, the result is the same: food for every population

# data[].attributes.body
Today we don't hear a lot of good things on the GMO's. This conference was interesting because it shows us an unusual point of view.
This technologie has saved a lot of people and the potential of it seems to be really big. How many people can we help if the GMO's are used with a nice goal. This lady has shown us the "nice" point of view. She mentioned for exemple this new yellow rice with vitamin A.
But I am septic on some points:
Are these technologies really used  with any financial goals of the big companies?
Do we really know the impacts of GMO's on the nature?
I'm not sure...

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Manon Jaquier)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Manon Jaquier)

# data[].attributes.body
First it is very interesting to hear somes positiv opinions about that. We always talk about the bad side of GMO/GEO but almost never what it brings. In the end the goal is the same : help the population to have food.
It is said on the little film that millions people think there is something sinister about genetic modification and it is true. Personnally I don't like products with gentic modifications because we don't hear a lot about that topic in Switzerland.
But in some countries it's a real opportunity. It is help farmers with
greater profitability, it is better than insecticide (2 or 3 times a week) and have more vitamine for people (for example the gold rice with Vitamine A save sometimes the life of children in poor countries).
Pamela Ronald also recalls that it has been used for over 40 years and is already a part of our diet.
However my opinion doesn't change after watching this video. I prefer regional or swiss "natural" products.  But I can understand why it's important in some countries and I could tolerate it.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Vincent Dafflon)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Vincent Dafflon)

# data[].attributes.body
I personally agree with Pamela Ronald. His speech was interesting. Technology is evolving and we need to evolve with it.
"Embracing both genetically improved seed and ecologically based farming methods, Pamela Ronald aims to enhance sustainable agriculture." In Switzerland, for example, farmers are still forced to produce ecologically. The problem is that they are often prohibited from using phytosanitary products that are essential to the crop, without being offered alternatives. Genetically modified seeds must therefore be further developed.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Myriam Richard)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Myriam Richard)

# data[].attributes.body
What she said, it's very interesting.
I think she has a good opinion of GMO. The genetically modified organisms can save life and help people in poverty. I think also that the science has no limit and that's probably dangerous. We can help the poor countries with other methods.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Maja von Arx)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Maja von Arx)

# data[].attributes.body
I think that she bring very important things to the point. For the most part I think she is right. It needs a change but I think we should be careful. Unfortunately there are so many dangers and manipulation possibilities in this area. Everybody should be much more informed about the topic to form an opinion before they hear a pro or contra voice.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thougths about engineering food (Pascal Hofstetter)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thougths about engineering food (Pascal Hofstetter)

# data[].attributes.body
It was a really good representation of the chance we have with GMOs. I've read in the comments many times that we shouldn't forget about risk, I agree but I prefer facts to just guesswork. Many people today die from the chemicals we use to produce enough food for our world. This is unacceptable. I don't know anything more important than someone's life. It's annoying to hear that there are people who are not interested in a quick solution. As Greta said, "We have to change now" Why do people fight against ideas that could be a solution? In Switzerland we have everything. We live in a prosperous society. Does this give us the right to prefer the environment over people who die from insufficient food?

# data[].attributes.headline
My thougths about engineering food (Thomas von Euw)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thougths about engineering food (Thomas von Euw)

# data[].attributes.body
It's interesting to hear a view, that in Switzerland didn't exist. Because in Switzerland the most people are conservative, by realizing new techniques and ideas. Here we have heared much positive points of GMO plants. We can save lifes, because we can produce more with less risk. We have resistences by illnesses, viruses and insects. When we have used 10 times per year insectizide without GMO, we can produce healthier plants with less insect populations with GMO.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Manuel Züger)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Manuel Züger)

# data[].attributes.body
While I was watching this movie I thought that this is an advertisment for engineering food because she told almost only the good influence from the genetic enginieered organisms to produce food. In spite of these facts I guess it is a great technologie to produce good and healthy food for the whole population around the world. An example which I would like mention is the golden rice. This rice is genetic engineered with beta carotin and can save a lot of lifes around the world. Why should we miss this simple chance to save millions of children life with only a simple engineering food?
She said that genetic enginieered organisms never produced a damage for the environement and the population. I have heard other examples where genetic engineered organisms created a huge damage to our nature. Thereforce am I not totally agreee with her but there are in fact a lot of positiv influence from genetic engineered organisms and we should increase our knowledge for engineered organisms and we should try to make it visiable and effortable for the whole earth. Today there is a big problem that only developped country can effort the seeds from genetic engineered organsms and this must change in the future.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Céline Schreyer)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Céline Schreyer)

# data[].attributes.body
First of all, I don't know a lot about this topic whereby I can't represent my opinion very well. From the point of view of P.Roland there are just good things about GMO's. In some points I'am agree with her statements how genetic improvements can  give a new opportunity to  make plants more resistant to disease like the rice example or make a plant eatable such as maize. On the other hand, it isn't possible that their aren't some negativ effects. So what might me interest is the other side of the work and trade with modified genes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts about engineering food (Matthias Lüscher)

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts about engineering food (Matthias Lüscher)

# data[].attributes.body
I think there are some good arguments, which she‘s told us. I think this presentation is kind of a advertising compagne of GEO. Yes it has some good effects for an example: producing more food in least developed countries or to reduce the use of pesticides, but it exist every time another side of the medal. It has to become more observed before we should use this world wide. Another good contra is the point which Stefanie said in her text about companies which could have monopolies about GEO-Systems and putting presure on the farmers with that.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts about engineering food (Stefanie Rohn)

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts about engineering food (Stefanie Rohn)

# data[].attributes.body
Her arguments were very strong. If you don’t have a own opinion about GMO’s, then you might think there are just good things with GMO’s and GMO is the solution of everything.
For my opinion there are maybe cases for witch GMO are e very good solution, for example healthy food for childrens in least develop countries. But if a company makes GMO just to earn a lot of money and to have monopoly of this (like Monsanto) so farmers haven’t an other choice and must buy this, then I think it isn't the right thing to use GMO.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Andrea Uebelhard)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Andrea Uebelhard)

# data[].attributes.body
I think the TED talk was interesting because she pointed out some good points. As an example that the golden rice could help thousands of children or that crops are immune to a pest. But she was just talking about the good sides of these modified crops but I would like to listen to someone who could tell me about the negative sides of genetically modified crops. She gave us a subjective point of view about all the good things that GMO's bring us. I'm very fascinated that we are able to move genes in organisms and that we can create things like golden rice. But I'm also a bit scared because we can't really predict what consequences it causes. I think she's right that with GMO there is a lot of potential to solve serious issues like the lack of vitamin A but we should use it really carefully and think good about the consequences it might has.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Johannes  Röllin)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Johannes  Röllin)

# data[].attributes.body
The appearance of Pamela Ronald is not very professional in my eyes. It gives me the impression that she wants to influence people. Nevertheless I find certain arguments very good. On the one hand the golden rice on the other hand her statement that science isn't a question of faith. I was also very surprised by her statement that although research on this topic since 40 years, there hasn't been any proven influence of GEM on human health or the environment. I think the reason why there is so much opposition to genetic engineering is that many people don't understand how genetic engineering works.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thought about engineering food (Lorenz Tschumi)

# data[].attributes.subject
Thought about engineering food (Lorenz Tschumi)

# data[].attributes.body
The speech of P. Ronald was very interesting an full of arguments which support the use of GMO. I agree, with GMO we can save lives and fight against ills and poverty.
The world population grows every day, so we have to produce enough healthy food for all.
I know that GMO could be a easy way for solve our problems but it's also a dangerous method because of the money companies can earn with. Today firms like cargill earn a lot of money with agriculture production and trade all over the world. But they don't show consideration with nature, little farmers and others. They are only interested in profit and these are the companies that will use GMO for their own interests and not for the benefit of the population and world food supply. So we have to take care with handling GMO.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Preisig Eric)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Preisig Eric)

# data[].attributes.body
First of all I thought that P. Roland is very emotional and bring her arguments based on emotions like the dieing of thousand of children. The topic of GMO or GEO is always a bit suspect for me. So i was a bit like closed minded. There are so many question how far you can go, but also what is ok what isn't. As she said we have not to talk about GMO anymore but from the specific plant with the specific benefit. This argument opened in some ways a door in me for this topic. But still I have some fears the humans will went to far once more.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Elna Vithayathil)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Elna Vithayathil)

# data[].attributes.body
What she told about food that people not agreeing with the work she has put up are unacceptable, because a lot of humans don’t understand or heard about the struggles in the third world countries or farmers which are planting plants for their living. When I heard that a lot of children which are struggling with malnutrition became blind because they were not getting Vitamin A was heartbreaking even there is a solution they don't have the money. I think overall the government should take a close look what is lacking for the citizens and the industrialized countries can help them in some way.

# data[].attributes.body
I understand her point of view. GMO is a simple method against poverty and ills of health.
But my sorrow is, that this methode is dangerous in the long run.
I think it is better living an working with de opportunuties that the country offers.
I am agree with her to help them, but not with manipulate genes.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Nicolas Oberson)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Nicolas Oberson)

# data[].attributes.body
The speech was very interesting. I my opinion, when you listen to her, everything is okay with GMO's. It's helping farmers, the medicine.. but is there really only a psotive side?
I was very impressed, that with the help of GMO's you can modify food to get more vitamins out of it and the fact that you can make grow two sorts of plants (like the potatoes and tomatoes) into one plants.
All around I'm very impressed what GMO's can do and I'm sure the use of it is a good thing, especially in Asia.

# data[].attributes.headline
My thoughts about engineering food (Flurina Haftka)

# data[].attributes.subject
My thoughts about engineering food (Flurina Haftka)

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion the nature has his own change and human beings should not
modify or push it. GMO construct one way you change natural rules. Therefor I'm convinced that the consequences aren't only positive.
The women's speech opened my eyes that GMO has good points as well. With GMO you can reduce pesticide and matlnuritation in less developed countries. All including it's something good for the environment even keep in ey the co2-pollution reduction because you don't need the tractor to bring out the pesticide.
All resume GMO has positive and negativ points and now the question is what is the best? With a modification you never now what will happen. I'm afraid of this consequences.
I'm convinced that we should pay attention to what we do, there are consequences we wouldn't or can't imagine. Perhaps even for our healthiness when we eat GMO productions.

# data[].attributes.body
I think she argued strongly and I understand what she means. I think it is difficult to plant plants, especially those used for food, in a way that everything works. But I don't think the argument that you change the seeds for third world countries that cannot buy other food because of poverty is not relevant. The problem could be solved differently. Already in 2018 there were 2208 billionaires who had a fortune of $9.1 trillion. We should generally change the gap between rich and poor, so that everyone has access to "normal" food, or the rich mediators that they should perhaps help these countries to get the food they need without change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thoughts about the speech of P. Ronald (Désirée Bühlmann)

# data[].attributes.subject
Thoughts about the speech of P. Ronald (Désirée Bühlmann)

# data[].attributes.body
I have to admit that the opinion of P.  Ronald kind of fell out of my point of view. But after listening to her arguments I completely agree with her.
Of course the genetic modified crops are not like nature created them hundreds of years ago about the normal crop you can buy today aren’t that neither. Like she said using GMOs and therefore less pesticide is the better option than vice versa.
The problem which should be solved like she said as well is that especially the farmers with not much  money available should get access to these genetic modified seeds. On one side to protect their families through less use of pesticide and on the other side to earn money.