Analysis Of The Gmo Debate Is Over Again By Mark Lynas

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

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.

He did however use a few examples from researching the topic could cause more pollution, or cause stress that can lead to an early grave. But if anyone attempted to refute the argument all they would have to do is use some studies and facts by reliable sources and attack this by its lack of references and this argument falls apart fast. The cartoon does sound logical and an uninformed person could read this and feel as if GMO labeling is a bad thing. If you are an environmentalist who never heard of GMOs and you read this you might think, “ya GMO labeling is bad it causes more electronic use and paper labels to be used and littered.” However the author is just trying to seem like this is factual evidence so without a number or any sort we don’t know if people who research GMO labeling could have any substantial effect on pollution.

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

Over the past few decades a new controversy has arisen in the scientific community: should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) be used in modern society. There are generally two sides to this debate: one being in favor of GMO use and the other against it. Pro GMO activists believe that GMOs can help address hunger issues and help reduce use of pesticides/insecticides while Anti-GMO activists state that it is a threat to the agriculture industry, and should be banned. Both sides have several valid points, however GMO’s are even more complicated from initial glance, and may not be as dangerous as some believe.

The author is very trustworthy and has an interest on the subject, so most of the things he says can be trusted. The author, Mark Lynas uses a good example of logos and ethos at the same time by quoting the scientific community saying that they “found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops” (1). Being himself a great ethos’ example, he quotes the scientific community which is a great source to trust. The use of logos is effective because he uses facts that the scientists came up with to prove that the GMOs are not dangerous at

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.

The public believes that Monsanto’s genetically modified organism (GMO) products is harmful not solitary to the environment and our food system but also to the consumers itself. Joe Mohr’s visual argument of Monsanto’s Reasons for Fighting GMO Labeling? It Loves You is a poor argument in an attempt to change the public’s view. Mohr claims that GMO labeling will cause the earth and its citizens to more stress, global warming, and cellular radiation. Mohr’s hope in transforming the unknowing public’s opinion by using Logos in defending Monsanto through a sound and logical visual explanation that was unfounded is nothing but a disappointment. Monsanto is all about corporate control and profit. Images and graphics that was used could potentially give depth and change public understanding to Mohr’s one-sided argument in procuring

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.

GMO stands for genetically modified organism. It is a organism that has had changes introduced into its DNA by using techniques of genetic engineering. Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods that are produced by this method. Genetically modified crops were first introduced to the marketplace in the 1990s. Various different companies started emerging and began to grow many different modified crops including tomatoes and corn. Livestock is fed GM feed, and recently a genetically modified salmon was approved for human consumption. Our society and other nations should limit the consumption of GM foods until their safety can be proven and their disadvantages are corrected.

In this article, Tamara Thompson asks common questions regarding genetically modified organisms otherwise known as GMOs. She gives a decent definition of GMOs as plant seeds that are modified to resist certain insects as well as harsh weather conditions. It is a very biased article, drawing attention to the company, Monsanto, in particular. She repeatedly assures her readers that GMOs are safe and that Monsanto currently works to the standards of organizations, such as the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA), Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She concludes with the benefits of GMOs nutritional value and how they contribute to reducing draws on natural resources such as fossil fuels. This article was beneficial, although biased it gave insight to what companies such as Monsanto want the public to believe. I found this article in Opposing Viewpoints with the search entry being genetically modified foods.

The world of GMO’s is a very back and forth world, one side insists it is good, one side insists it is horrible. A woman named Robyn O'Brien, who is part of an organization who is against GMO’s (genetically modified organism), gave a Tedtalk, an informative lecture, about GMO’s, whether they are good for you or not. Each side has come up with their own way of explaining their side of the story, and everyone has had some influences to sway what they are saying. Robyn for example, used a Pathos (emotional) argument, and was influenced by what she does for work, and her family.

In the article the author talks about the opposing side of the argument on which how labeling GMOs is a bad idea and it can actually just bring a lot of disadvantages. The information I want to include are how the author states that GMOs are safe and how they can actually be beneficial to people. I like this article because it creates a different image in how GMOs are viewed since it focuses on the economic and health benefits GMOs can create.

GMO Controversy. The beginning of the altering of DNA, which has been encoded in both plants and animals, results in drastic consequences applied to both pro and anti GM foods. Within this article a GMO is referred to as “transgenic crops, where the genes from a nonplant organism (usually bacteria) are deliberately inserted into a plant (using recombinant DNA or gene-splicing) in hopes the new plant will exhibit certain desirable traits” (Norwood, Oltenacu, Lorenzo, & Lancaster, 2015, p. 60). Arguably the traits do not always have the best of outcomes. Genetic mutations which show morbid alterations within the bodies of animals and humans, are less likely to have exposure, limiting the discussion or visual representation, outside of the producer.

Much of the public concern surrounding the safety of GMOs stems from the process of actually creating them. This is admittedly not a natural process, which is a surefire way to raise critic’s eyebrows in doubting their safety. However, there is no evidence that supports these myths. The Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, The National Academy of Science, and the Board on Agriculture and Natural Recourses all agree after extensive testing and observation that there is no additional harm in the consumption of GMO food. The research conducted in animal studies, as well as chemical analysis of the crops, show no indication that GMOs are negatively affecting human health. The next allegation hurled at GMOs is that they may have