Article Analysis Of GM Farms

The article opened by portraying a future world where natural seeds were virtually extinct. This frightened me because the idea of solely relying on GM food seemed unhealthy and unsafe. Referring back to the article, research conducted by feeding rats GM potatoes resulted in massive systematic health problems. Health issues such as damaged immune system, higher blood sugar, and pre-cancerous cell growth frightened me. The rats’ response to GM food demonstrated exactly what will happen to us humans if we were to consume the exact GM foods. Though I was alarmed by the cause of the GM food, I am not surprised that GM products result in horrific amount of health hazard. It is clear that anything artificial would contain different chemicals and is highly susceptible in causing undesirable reactions to living things. Hence, it worries me that the use of GM product,

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

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.

to argue against the media that caused fear to erupt in the public. To begin his essay, he explains

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

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.

Due to reading “Stuffed and Starved” by Raj Patel this semester, I learned about how foods are produced and impact the world. Ever since I visited the farmer’s market in October, I became more aware of whether or not I am consuming genetically modified crops. Raj Patel revealed some of the many truths about the Green Revolution regarding genetically modified crops that influenced my choice of eating. Prior to reading the section of the book that made me aware of what I am eating, I believed that genetically modified crops were more beneficial than harmful to everyone. Not only did the genetically modified crops produce a higher yield to feed people, but the negative impact of technology outweighed its benefit. For example, Patel states, “domestic

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).

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.

In initiation, Agribusinesses, who promote their GMO foods, have asserted fallacies about their GMO's, stating that they will save the world from hunger by generating more food, create more productive crops, and reduce the cost of farming; those of which have all been invalidated by experts. For example, Andrew Kimbrell , the executive director of the International Centre for Technology Assessment, argues that food production is not the problem , and in fact "The world produces more than enough food to feed its current population", that the problem is in distribution. The world actually produces so much food that "enough is available to provide 4.3 pounds of food to every person, every day" (Kimbrell 1998). Agribusinesses lie to the people claiming that their GMO's are saving people, and ending hunger in the world to try and convince you to buy their product, when in effect food production is not the problem. Secondarily, GMO's are said to be more productive, and create greater yields; however Stated by Kimbrell, "there are currently two principal types of biotech seeds in production: Herbicide Resistant, and 'Pest' resistant seeds. And in "A Two year study by the University of Nebraska" revealed

Page’s article starts by describing an ideal world, where in which people could always choose if they wanted to consume genetically modified food products or not. He then argues that this is not a perfect and ideal world, where billions of people are starving because there is not enough food. He also says that this number will continue to grow as the earth’s population continues to grow and farming becomes more expensive. He then claims that farming is contributing to global warming and the world needs a more efficient production of food.

Today’s world is all about how we can be seen as helping others, or how one county is offering support to those in need of it. When Jeremy Seifert starting his work on his film GMO-OMG (Seifert, 2013), the film started by asking people the simple question do they eat GMO. The film goes through the first 2 min of just people responses to that question and it is amazing how people were so unware of what they were eating. GMO are genetically modified organism which as the movie explains there are two primary categories of GMOs, the pesticide producer, and Herbicide resisters (Seifert, 2013) which help farmers to grow crops by making them resistant to bugs or weeds that would have destroyed crops in the past. Monsanto is one of the largest GMO producers of a corn seed that would allow for crops to grow with natural resistant to herbicide and insects. When Jeremy went to Africa to research why some of the locals were rejecting the Monsanto seeds because they said that you could only plant them once and then you would be forever in need of the replace seeds rather than just reusing seeds from the fully grown plants. The Haitian people believed that the seeds of life are a common inheritance of all humanity (Seifert, 2013).

In “Why We Will Need Genetically Modified Food.” it talks about the different reason people should like GMO’s better. GMO’s are a very controversial subject because modified food is, well ‘modified.’ GMO’s have a long history of occurrences, with a bunch of likes and dislikes. Just like any other things that needs improvement, it took GMO’s a long time to be a successful thing. The author strongly agrees that GMO’s are our future. The author includes very meaningful and statistical information. GMO’s are taking over the world in a positive way as meant in the article. He believes GMO’s are good because; With the weather genetically modified food can help, the modifications can make plants grow in poor areas, the plants can be resistant to

The article points out that there is no relationship between a hungry country and its population, and that the world produces more food than ever before. The real cause of hunger is not the lack of food but the lack of resources to buy it and the lack of land for people to grow their own food. New improvements in biotechnology will not reduce hunger as the vast majority of improvements in biotechnology have been created not because companies want to improve the agriculture or reduce hunger, but because they want to make a profit. An example provided says that new biotechnical innovations increase expenses per acre for seeds plus chemicals, which results in a lower return to the growers – growers are spending more than what they making. Discount packages are offered by biotechnology companies, but only when purchasing technology-packages.