"No worse than": agricultura tradicional e transgênicos (Fuvest 2001)
It is a nice irony, given that scientific genetics started with the manipulation of a crop plant, the pea, that the most vehement public opposition to it in recent years has come from those who object to the genetic manipulation of crops. At the moment, so-called genetically modified (GM) crops are in disgrace. Consumers, particularly in Europe, are wary of buying food that may contain them. Environmental activists are ripping up fields where they are being tested experimentally. And companies that design them are selling off their GM subsidiaries, or even themselves, to anyone willing to take on the risk. Yet the chances are that this is just a passing fad. No trial has shown a health risk from a commercially approved GM crop (or, more correctly, a transgenic crop, as all crop plants have been genetically modified by selective breeding since time immemorial). And while the environmental risks, such as cross-pollination with wild species and the promotion of insecticide-resistant strains of pest, look more plausible, they also look no worse than the sorts of environmental havoc wreaked by more traditional sorts of agriculture.
THE ECONOMIST JULY 1ST 2000
Fonte: The Economist, July 1st 2000.
According to the passage, more traditional sorts of agriculture
- A) appear to be just as damaging to the environment as GM crops.
- B) seem to cause less damage to the environment than GM crops.
- C) may cause greater damage to the environment than GM crops.
- D) have been proved to cause no damage to the environment.
- E) are far less damaging to the environment than GM crops.