This reflects that those with the proper level of education have come to appreciate the fact that biotechnology is an integration of biology and technology. Its purpose, therefore, is the achievement of some form of improvement from scientific facts to everyday applications. Although these facts are all valid as regards the definition and role of biotechnology in nature, it means much more than just these.
As has been demonstrated in recent decades, biotechnology has the capacity to increase the production, efficiency, and quality of crops. Economic forces always act to increase efficiency and production for better supply of our needs and for the provision of more and high-quality foods. They remain the most dominant forces in the supply of goods. To respond to the needs, these economic forces always enhance the promotion of the levels of production and quality of farm produce. For these reasons, it is true that economic forces have the ability to increase efficiency and production.
Towards this regard, our needs for the demand for an increase in quantity and quality foods can then be effectively solved. Furthermore, the American president clearly put it “As technology and information are…in almost every job …America is becoming more productive, and workers need…“. It is open evidence from our surroundings that our world is indeed changing by the adoption and integration of science and technology. This in turn increases the levels of productivity of foods and other social needs. In addition to the growing need for plenty and higher quality foods, the trend of increasing applications of biotechnology in both crops for direct consumption and other uses indicates additional evidence that integration of technology is playing a very important part in the satisfaction of our needs. Thus, I remain convinced, by facts advanced by this long discussion, to think that biotechnology use is increasing because of our need for more acceptable quality foods.
In addition to the above, an increase in the trend of biotechnology use in food production is evident. This is demonstrated by the fact that over 60% of soybean crops that are mostly used as livestock feeds are genetically modified (GMO) and this trend is expected to not only rise but also to continue. In contrast, GMOs only account for 24% and 20% of maize and canola, respectively. These two crops are mainly used for human consumption. It is therefore surprising that, GMOs account for almost double the production of non-food product cotton, with a production average at about 46% in comparison to that of maize and canola. These statistics reflect that we tend to tolerate biological modifications in natural crops and non-consumed products while widely reducing and limiting modifications in consumed products for the interest of safety. This eventually indicates our tendency to abandon benefits that come along with the adoption of science and technology due to our preference for a safe approach to biotechnology use. Thus, it is convincing to deduce that the extent and degree of biotechnology use not only depends on but is also limited by our preferences for its use.
