A Sociological Conceptual Framework Of Genetically Modified Organisms

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.

GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other

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 Organisms are organisms that are infused with DNA extracted from another organism, which can come from plants, animals and even human genes. Although many companies have decided that buyers of their products do not need to be informed on the dangers of genetically modified organisms, consumers deserve to be informed by product labeling because the unnatural production of consumable products can, and will create detriments to our bodies, our environment and other living things.

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.

What is genetically modified (GM) food? These are foods whose DNA have been artificially altered in some way to produce foods with unique qualities not found in nature. For example, onions that don’t make you cry when they are cut. Whenever you go to the grocery store or eat a restaurant, chances are you’re eating GM food without even knowing it. It’s in the ingredients we buy and fed to the animals we get our food from. What you may also be unaware of are the health and safety concerns, along with the lack of labeling identifying GM products. What’s more disconcerting is GM crops have the potential to change our ecosystem forever. This is a social issue that affects us all, because we all have to eat.

This food crisis is consequently causing an increasing gap between the rich and poor. This gap includes the amount and quality of food that is being consumed. Along the way, a solution to produce the amount of food needed to serve the population was to use Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). With the growing signs and evidence of the risk that GMOs bring, people have a right to know what is in the food that they are eating. Through conflict theory we can identify that the elite deter us from educating ourselves on the truth of what we are eating and make it almost impossible to change Genetically Modified Food (GMF).

A genetically modified organism, GMO, has been altered by genetic engineering techniques. GMOs are widely used by scientists in many different ways to include the production of food and in research.8 Zebrafish genetically modified to be a fluorescent bright red, green and orange have been available for purchase as pets in 49 states in the United States since 2003.8 However, these patented GloFish are banned in California. The California Fish and Game Commission decided the fish were the result of a “trivial use for a powerful technology.”7 The Commission’s belief that the fish should not have been created led to a law making the GloFish illegal. Originally GloFish were developed by scientists in Singapore to be living pollution sensors as they would only glow when in the presence of pollutants.7 The Commission’s ban on GloFish highlights the controversy over genetically modified organisms and how public opinion can be swayed by the beliefs of others whether those beliefs are based on science or not. This paper will focus first on what genetic modification means and then will look at the pros and cons of genetically modified foods. Finally, the author’s opinion of the issue of GMO food will conclude the paper.

There is much controversy surrounding genetically engineered (GE) foods and the use of biotechnology. However, they offer many scientifically proven advantages that could have a dramatic impact on world hunger and our environment in the near future. At the same time, the public is asking many good questions and raising concerns about what long term negative effects genetically engineered foods may have on the population’s health and the environment. Never the less, based on the following list, the advantages biotechnology currently provides, seems to out way the potential disadvantages they could impose on our future.

The three articles at the end of the chapter bring up the benefits and concerns with this ever growing scientific development. In the first article, “GMOs: Fooling – Er, ‘Feeding’ – The World for 20 Years”, the authors debunk the common myths told to the public by GMO advocating scientists. For example, many scientist claim that GMO crops are harmless to the people and the environment, but the authors of this article say otherwise by referencing a statement made by the Academy of Environmental Medicine: “these foods pose a serious health risk in areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health” (378). The second article by Richard Manning provides examples where GMOs have helped the people of India, Mexico, and countries in Africa and South America solve their major food crises. In “Eating the Genes… ”, Manning tries to ease the concern of GMOs by simply phrasing, “genetic engineering merely refines the tools” (380). The author sees

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines GMOs as an organism whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural way. GM plants are usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide tolerant. Monsanto is a huge factor in the production of genetically modified organisms, or more commonly known as GMOs. GMOs have been studied and there is proof showing they are harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. Big businesses like Monsanto are taking over and basically producing a monopoly over the agriculture industry; running small, “mom and pop” farms out of business. GMOs should be banned because they have little benefits and the corporation is only looking out for the good of themselves.

In the documentary Food Inc, directed by Robert Kenner, it highlights the perspective of those who oppose Monsanto and other companies that are modifying the food production industry by implementing GMO’s into their seeds. GMO’s, or genetically modified organisms, are living organisms that scientists have in some way changed the genome of to have the resulting organism, such as a seed or crop in the case of Monsanto, express a desired trait. Many think that genetically modifying a seed alters the genes of the plant to the point that it should no longer even be classified as the same plant. Also, many fear the adverse repercussions of consuming GMO’s and the effects that they have on human health. As said previously, one main contributor to

The power to handle and customize the common of living organisms has showed out the production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and utilization of genetically modified (GM) foods. “The potential for GM foods to improve the efficiency of food production, increase customer satisfaction, and provide potential health benefits has contributed to the rapid incorporation of GM foods into the American diet. However, GM foods and GMOs are also a topic of ethical debate” (pg 1). The utilize of GM foods and GM technology is nearby ethical concerns and conditional sense and should preferably attach to the ethical level placed upon food and nutrition professionals, like “beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and autonomy” (pg 1).