Can someone please evaluate this Issue essay and let me know how I can improve?


Change is a necessary evil, especially when it comes to down to the wellbeing of a nation. While farmers are being paid subsidies for growing a new variety of millet as the cost is comparatively more, with added benefit of millet being a stable food in Tagus, it is assumed by the argument that the people will readily adapt to this change. The response to combating the vitamin A deficiency by engineering a new breed of millet, high in vitamin A is a commendable step, but it does need additional reasoning to bolster this move.
While the argument states that the cost of the new millet is costlier than the previous one available and states that farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new millet, it does not answer the question whether the farmers will be willing to farm this new variety of millet. As farming is a chore which depends on nature, the argument fails to mention whether the new type of millet can be grown in existing soil available in Tagus or whether an entirely different variety of soil is needed for this. The process of growing any plant needs water, the argument fails to mention if the new millet needs more water or less for its cultivation. The argument does not answer whether the output of growing the new millet would yield the same amount of millet, than it did before, it the amount of yield is less then this might in turn lead to shortage in food supply. Finally when one deals with crops one needs to deal with pests and insects, the argument is void of the information if the new variety of millet does need extensive or intensive use of insecticides and pesticides. If the main aim of increasing vitamin A in diet is met but at the cost of injecting variety of chemicals, disturbing the ecological balance and farmer dissatisfaction, the cons overrule the pros.
The argument also assumes that since the staple diet of Tagus is millet, the people of Tagus will readily adopt the new variety. But there is no specification whether the new millet tastes the same as the old millet. If the taste is different it does not guarantee that people will readily adapt to this change. They might instead move on to consuming different food items or look for different source of vitamin A. Since there is no clarity regarding the shelf life of the new millet, it would not be sensible to assume that people would replace it with the old millet if the new millet had a lesser shelf life. As the new type of millet costs more to the farmer even though subsidies are provided they would be sold to the people at a greater cost than the old millets making affordability an issue in household with low income. The claims that the new variety of millet has a higher concentration of vitamin A does not specify whether consuming the millets on a daily basis would be safe as anything in excess is not safe for human body. As research suggests consuming excessive amounts of milk which contains calcium can cause kidney stones, now if a person was to consume more milk with high levels of calcium it would indeed have an adverse effect. Hence mentioning the amount of vitamin A and the quantity of millet which should be consumed is highly essential for the safe being of the people of Tagus.
Though the engineering of the new variety of millet has been done by keeping the best interest of the public in mind, the reasoning and logic behind this should be out in public domain. Battling vitamin deficiency might be the aim of the organisation but it fails to address the questions that stem from their apparent solution of a new genetically modified version of the millet. Thus before promoting the new type of millet the authorities should look into the above mentioned questions, they should definitely use logical reasoning and should perform statistical evaluation before brining about any change into the society. A well informed scientific decision goes a long way and is beneficial than an uninformed and ill planned one.