Genetically Modified Foods ( Gmfs )

In 2015, Tim Anderson, a PhD researcher, wrote “GMO Foods are Unsafe”, an article which perhaps sheds light on the mishandling of genetically modified foods, including the lack of testing of said food products, as well as the potential hazards posed to humans and the environment. In the same year, Genetic Literacy Project’s web editor, JoAnna Wendel, wrote a contrasting article “Genetically Modified Foods Have Been Studied and Found Safe to Eat”, and voices her disgust over the false information that constantly belittle GMOs. She believes the allegation that little evaluation has been accomplished to monitor and ensure the safety of these genetic modifications is based on frantic opinions and not accurate facts. Although their positions appear to utterly oppose one

GMOs, (genetically modified organisms) have been a topic of interest in the social eyes for years. Since they’ve been created, many people have voiced and written about their opinions on GMOs, and whether they are dangerous or not. Created to expand the genetic diversity of crops and animals, many don’t know whether GMOs are good or bad, and neither do researchers. Though there hasn’t been any evidence claiming whether GMOs are good or bad, it has certainly not stopped the public from creating their own opinions. Since no one knows the truth behind GMO, it has opened a window of opportunities for companies including Monsanto to voice their support of GMO, while other companies like the Non-GMO Project voice their

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

In the essay “Genetically Modified Food: Watching What We Eat,” by Julie Cooper, she argues against the rampant use of genetically modified food (GMO) without any current form of regulation. Cooper discusses the possibility of health risks to those consuming foods with altered genes and the food’s capabilities to have far-reaching health risks. She continues with a discussion as to how and why the creation and use of the GMOs have become so unregulated. She then discusses the response, which is the public’s cry for their right to make informed choices. Other topics discusses are the political, environmental, and corporate ramifications of the rise of GMOs.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

Genetically modified foods have contributed to better foods in terms of food quality and human health.

GMOs are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. The GMO debate has a huge gap just like the climate change’s ambiguous debate. Some people are for the consumption of it and have as arguments that GMOs will feed the future population of the world that is expected to double in the few years to come, or that scientists can build stronger crops that resist to pests, therefore less use of pesticides. Some are against these ideas because they think that GMOs represent a threat to the environment and that they can cause a lot of health problems. The goal of this paper is to look at two articles “The GMO Debate is Over Again” by Mark Lynas and" Seeds of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering" by Dr. Joseph Mercola, and see where the use rhetorical strategies are effective and where they are not.

In a health conscious world today and advance food technology people are beginning to wonder ‘what is it that we are actually taking in’. This is where the word GMOs starts being tossed around. GMO is the abbreviation of Genetically Modified Organisms, but if crops and livestock are fine naturally why should they be modified? This is where the myth of GMOs being harmful to the human body become present. The public grows intimidated when they know that their food has been modified, leaving the people with a state of mind of hatred. The belief that the public gets when they sense that their food seems abnormal, especially being modified to meet the needs for a better future, will make the public imagine it as a very dangerous intake for any source of life to sustain.

Mohr showed focused attention to the public’s values and beliefs by presenting Monsanto’s interests in protecting its consumers and the earth through spending millions of dollars to stop GMO labeling. He offered one side of the story and not the other, which is a good strategy in an argument if the other story outweighs Mohr’s claim. What Mohr omitted are the facts regarding the benefits to be harbored in labeling GMO products in the future. Mohr was focused on the present state of the matter without due consideration of the future, hence making his appeal to Pathos

In December 2014, a Harvard professor wrote an article outlining the many benefits of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and why it is a good idea to use them. This professor is now surrounded by controversy because he failed to note his connection to the largest producer of GM seeds, Monsanto, who not only told him to write the article but also gave him the major points he was to address. Why was this such a huge deal, and why did Monsanto want a pro-GMO article out there so badly? The GMO debate is largely controversial, but largely misunderstood because of the misinformation given by biased writers, such as John Hibma, a nutritionist and author who wrote the article “More Pros Than Cons.” What many people do not realize is that genetic modification is a serious issue and that articles like Hibma’s fail to disclose the truth about the numerous health, crop, and environmental concerns surrounding GMOs.

Joseph Mercola is an osteopath and a writer of books and papers. In his article, he addressed why genetically Modified foods are not safe to eat. He constantly refers to the writings of Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada, once and advocates for GMOs turned skeptic. He explains that modifying the genes in plants is based on the hypothesis that has been proven wrong and that safety is an issue. He links GM food with serious health risks, and although big

So, in a panic, they spread word of heart problems, liver failure, and even cancer (Young 46). Dispersing false information of environmental damage, they argue on, using emotional catches to build support (Blake 4). But science is not running blindly into a snare; instead it is carefully progressing toward a better age, illuminating the future with possibility. Contrary to popular belief, there is no substantial evidence that GMOs have any harmful effects, not only after being extensively studied, but also after the consuming of trillions of meals containing GMOs (“GMOS: A Solution” 131). GMOs are environmentally sound, and also reduce the need for environmentally harmful agrichemicals (Blake 4). The most frustrating aspect of the debate on GMOs is that “those opposed to GMOs act like religious zealots unwilling to listen…dismissing out of hand the notion that the gene altering technology might be completely harmless or even a boon to humanity” (qtd Kruse & Thorn

In the TED Talk “What’s wrong with our food system,” Birke Baehr tells his audience that “genetically engineered food…have been proven to cause cancer,” and that eating genetically engineered food causes “signs of liver and kidney toxicity” and “kidney inflammation and lesions” (Baehr). According to The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, a genetically modified organism (GMO) is an “organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there” (gmo). The essence of Baehr’s argument is that GMOs are harmful to human health and people need to support local, organic farmers who don’t use GMOs. However, this is something the government or scientific community is trying to ignore. Due to conflict of interest of government officials, government supported scientific agencies have been claiming GMOs are harmless and purposefully disregarding scientific studies that prove harmful effects of GMOs. This is a problem because the government is taking action to support GMOs while consumers are being misinformed. Evidence shows that GMOs “have harmful effects on laboratory animals,” “increased the use of pesticides,” and affect the nutritional value of food (Antoniou). Thus, the government should stop overlooking studies suggesting harmful effects of GMOs, require proper testing on GM crops, and stop supporting biotech companies in order to end the use of genetically modified

“70 percent of our corn farmland and 93 percent of soy farmland are planted with crops genetically engineered to resist pests and herbicides and increase crop yields. 60% of all the processed foods in the United States are genetically modified; a shocking statistic has the concern of many Americans. However, most people are uninformed about the beneficial impact that genetically modified food has on their diet. GM is the use of molecular biology technology to modify the inherited structure of organisms. Genetically engineered crops increase nutrients, drought tolerance, provide more food for growing populations, and resists diseases and pesticides. Genetically engineered foods are crucial to the improvement of economy, agriculture, society, and health choices. The creation of GM foods was one of the most significant breakthroughs in food industry. Genetically modifying foods is a key component that is harmless for the enrichment of our foods.

Welcome to the age of an agricultural revolution as everyday biotechnology continues to bring innovation to human’s most basic needs – food. Food is essential to any living organism, providing energy for our production and nutrients for our protection. Without this fundamental element, life cannot exist. Our lack to produce our own energy, like plants, causes us to become dependent on others for survival. Humans existence is attributed only to the million years of evolution our food source underwent to sustain our survival. Changing the primary nature of our food source, whether it is plant or animal, directs mankind in a dangerous future if our food dependency is permanently hampered. Welcome to the age of an agricultural devolution