Whether genetically modified foods are different from none genetically modified foods: analysis form assumption:
Before addressing the question concerning genetically modified foods and none genetically modified foods, it is good to know that type one error indicates that there is rejection of the true stated hypothesis without proper analysis of the fact i.e. there is rejection of truth.
The hypothesis may be null but true. Then type two error indicates that there is no rejection of a false hypothesis that is supposed to be rejected at all means, meaning that an error has been committed by accepting the false hypothesis. From the hypothesis that genetically modified foods are different from none genetically modified foods, type 1 error would means that GMF are not different from the NGMP. And type ii error would mean that there is no difference in both.
It is true that genetically modified foods are different from none genetically modified foods. This is so because genetically modified foods have great advantages than natural foods. Examples of these advantages include higher nutritional values in genetically modified foods, low cholesterol value making them less harmful to the body, they adapt quickly to hatch environments, they grow faster hence short growing periods, they are resistant to diseases, drought and have higher yield than natural products.
So rejection of this fact means that whatever is being addressed here is false, hence type 1 error. By denying the truth of the matter, the impact of type 1 error would discourage investment in this crucial technology of engineering food to a better and helpful product that can sustain the future of food security.
There is no need of growing genetically modified foods if natural foods can do better. Why should one waste all the resources in a new and less effective product that is too expensive to come up with and yet it does not outdo the previous one. There’s is no need of growing genetically modified foods which do not solve the problem of food scarcity. Then people should opt to remain with natural food products that are less expensive and still would solve the problem of food scarcity. Foods that have enough body nutrients grow faster, more adaptive, more resistant to diseases etc.
Type II error would support that genetically modified foods are the same as none genetically modified foods, meaning that there is no rejection of a false hypothesis. That means there is failure by not rejecting the fact that genetically modified foods are the same as none genetically modified foods, and yet the truth is known, tested both in agribusiness world and in metabolism. The impact would be that any country investing on genetically modified foods will disregard the benefits of genetically modified foods; this would include embracing natural food products which we know very well that they are not competitive in eliminating the problem of hunger.
Hence a stupid move would be taken to abandon all the benefits of the genetically modified foods. These benefits as earlier stated include more nutrients, resistant to diseases, fast growth, high yield etc. The consequences would be felt at the near future concerning the danger of food security.
The rejection of a true hypothesis means that there is diversion of the truth to a false. This practically leads to a great negative impact to the society, by especially abandoning the benefits of genetically modified foods. So discouragement of type1 error should be strengthened by lowering the probability of increasing the level of significance. This is enhanced by reducing the level of significance by less than 2%.
In order to minimize type2 error, which proves that genetically modified foods are the same as none genetically modified foods, it is always good to discourage the probability of committing type2 error. This would be enhanced by diagnosis of the benefits of genetically modified foods. This would include use of samples and statistical data to analyze critically the advantages and disadvantages of both genetically modified and none genetically modified foods. This would include testing genetically modified foods in different agricultural fields with different climatic conditions
4 significance difference;
See excel table attached.
Acre Number of bushels mean Number of bushels NO. BUSHELS-MEAN (NO. BUSHELS -MEAN) SQRD SQR ROOT:SD SD ERROR 1 92 92 -20.6 424.36 16.23 4.195 2 105 105 -7.6 57.63 114 114 1.4 1.96 4 129 129 16.4 268.96 5 93 93 -19.6 384.16 6 138 138 25.4 645.16 7 101 101 -11.6 134.56 8 114 114 1.4 1.96 9 121 121 8.4 70.56 10 94 94 -18.6 345.96 11 131 131 18.4 338.56 12 95 95 -17.6 309.76 13 114 114 1.4 1.96 14 139 110.285714 26.4 36.96 15 109 110.75 -3.6 12.96 total=1689 112.6 3022.48 4. Hypothesis Test: Mean vs. Hypothesized Value LOWER LIMIT=92 UPPER LIMIT=139 Level of Significance: a = 5% MOST LIKELY=114 Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis if p-value < a SD=16.3 Calculations: EXPECTED VALUE=139+16.3=155.3 156.000 hypothesized value 112.600 mean Number of bushels 16.247 std. dev. 4.195 std. error 15 Total number (N) 14 d frequency -10.273 t distribution 8.00E-09 From the calculation. The hypothesis value or the expected value is less than 5%.therefore we should reject the null hypothesis. Hence there is enough evidence to conclude that 0.05 level of significance is greater than0.00000008 therefore the difference is great. Compared to the yield from the other 15 acres of NGM corn, there is a significant difference. This difference proves that both errors occurred in this hypothesis.
Ion Saliu (2004) statistic and standard deviation, McGraw hill, New Jersey
Introduction (2004) concept of standard deviation, retrieved on 17th august, available at www.newscientist.com
GMP (2005) scientifically modified foods, retrieved on 17th august, available at www.en.wikipedia.org.com
Standard deviation (2004) SD concept, retrieved on 17th august, available at www.sciencebuddies.org.com