Anti Gmo Misconceptions

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.

I agree with Cooper on the idea that GMOs are dangerous and that the need for strict

The argument that I wish to refute will be, “Monsanto’s Reasons for Fighting GMO Labeling? It Loves You ” this is a persuasive argument that would like to bring in a younger uneducated audience in to believe that GMO labeling is bad. This cartoon was published on the humor section of planetsave.com. This means that this is little more than a brief chuckle at the argument and then disregarding it because it has not backing behind it. The author appears to be against GMO labeling because consumers will try to research what GMO is and use up resources and electricity. This will worsen pollution levels, and cause them to look deeper into the topic.

A growing number of foods we intake on a daily basis are composed of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). DNA from other kinds of organisms, bacteria, or viruses are used to change the DNA of GMOs so that they can counteract pesticides. According to Bill Freese, “GMOs are present in 60 to 70 percent of foods on US supermarket shelves” (1) . Not only is the food itself a problem, but the method of growing GMOs can potentially harm the soil, in turn decreasing bio-diversity. Purchasing non genetically modified foods is a better decision. Despite the convenience of junk food, anyone can live a healthier lifestyle by making an effort to eat non gmo, raw, organic, and vegan foods.

Those opposed to GMO labeling have won once again. In “California Rejects Labeling Of Genetically Modified Food; Supporters Vow To Fight On”, Amy Standen points out the advantages that biotechnology companies have over local, small farms. Standen highlights the individual support, effort, and money put into labeling GMO’s. “Yes to 37” was a step away from success, until the opposing side stepped in and won the labeling battle. Through the use of direct quotes, as well as reference to companies like Monsanto, it becomes clear that biotechnology has succeeded once again. Standen uses these rhetorical strategies to evoke both an emotional, and ethical appeal within the reader throughout this article.

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.

Many will argue that Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs) are not safe for human consumption, however they are almost inevitable for our everyday food consumption. Some argue that the recent increase in gluten intolerance is caused by GMO foods (Argument against). Other state that the risk to humans by GMO’s is relatively small (The GMO”). The bottom line is what people put into their bodies is a personal choice and a person should be able to easily tell if a product has been genetically modified or not.

Franken-Fears: An Analysis of Chapter 6 in The Book “The Food Police” Chapter 6, titled Franken-Fears, in the book, “The Food Police”, discusses the hot button topic of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and how they play an integral role in feeding the world. If one were to google “Genetically Modified Organisms”, they would immediately see that about half of the articles are vehemently against the use of GMOs and about half are enthusiastically supporting the use of GMOs. It is quite difficult to sift through all the so called “facts”, so Jayson Lusk comprised a whole chapter dedicated to the real facts about GMOs.

Gmos can cause very irrevocably damage towards the environment. And they cause a huge risk of food-based allergies towards the humans. Gmos are also not fully tested to be eaten. The pollen spreads the pharmaceutical genes into the gmo foods supply. They have a lack of consumers due to the creation of ethical dilemma. There is a toxin that fights pest is the caused of the allergies to start. But, gmos affect the younger kids more quicker than older people. The AAEM suggest non-gmos diet for every patient.

In contrast, the counter argument claims that GMOs are unsafe for human consumption. However, GMOs actually improve human health by reducing the amount of pesticides needed for successful crop production. With the use of GMOs in crop production, the amount of pesticide and herbicide application has decreased. To resume, successful crop production is essential to a farmer’s success, which could be why over 18 million farmers throughout the world utilize GMOs. The successful production of crops can be achieved by genetically modifying crops with resistance against insects, weeds, and other threats. Resistance to different stressors has reduced pesticide applications by 8.1 percent. Additionally, crops that are modified to be resistant to specific

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.

I took the factual approach in my first letter to speak about the negative effects GMOs have on our health in order to create an impact on just how expansive the industry of Genetically modified foods really is. To put this into perspective “About 90 percent of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are GMOs.” (Gerson, 2015) which is an outstanding ratio in terms of having GMO vs. Non-GMO availability for consumer consumption. People either choose to ignore or stay uneducated on the impacts GMOs really have and I have presented ideas that would make the young generation think about the impacts they could either impose or initiate towards a healthier future. Another outstanding piece of evidence showing just how harmful the use of GMOS are, is that “an additional 527 million pounds over the past 16 years. The major herbicide, glyphosate, is found inside the GM plants we eat, leading to its detection in people.” which is scary to think about, because

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