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.
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
Surveys have reported findings in which only 13% of consumers said they actively avoid GM foods, while 74% were not sufficiently concerned to actively avoid it.This seems surprising considering the amount of anti-GM media coverage. From many of these articles it would seem appropriate to assume that the public as a whole are adamantly opposed to GM foods, but this is not substantiated by the surveys conducted.” “Some countries are having big improvements to design Genetically Modified Foods to further reassure the general public and pave the way for widespread acceptance of a genetic technology that will be crucial in helping to alleviate current and future challenges in food”.
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
The article “Not in my fridge” by Jeffery M. Smith elaborately discussed the health hazards of genetically modified (GM) products. This article has opened my eyes and revealed my ignorance of how unmindful of what I have eaten for years. I was very alarmed by many of the things I have learned in this article. After learning the side-effect of GM food, I was certainly concerned for our health. Moreover, learning that the biotech company’s strong stand in advocate of GM products as well as the United States governments and the Food and Drug administration (FDA) cover up of serious safety issues of GM highly disturbed me.
There is currently a lot of controversy over Genetically Engineered Food (GM). The controversy is mainly over the genetic engineering and production of food that is sold in the market place. Many people and organizations are involved in the disputes over these practices. Farmers, biotechnology companies, scientists, government regulators, and activists are some of these people.
Some consumers claim GMO’s do not increase yields or even result in lower yields. Arguing these statements Monsanto, an agricultural company, states, “In agriculture, desirable crop characteristics are known as traits. One of the most important traits is yield. Improving crop yield can be accomplished through both breeding and biotechnology. GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology”. The statements revolving around the anti-GMO myths are continuously being revoked as further research comes out. By increasing yields, farmers are able to sell more crops which in return can have a positive effect on the economy. Geoffrey Lean, who published a story in the UK newspaper later, claimed his article on GMO reduced yields based on Dr. Barney Gordon of Kansas State University’s manganese research was given a rebuking response. Dr. Gordon himself claimed Geoffrey Lean’s work was “a gross misrepresentation of my research and a good example of irresponsible journalism”. While the yields were more relevant in
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
“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 this research project, the question that initially guided my ideas was “How safe are Genetically Modified Organisms?" Beyond further investigation of the topic, I took the route of GM Feed to assess the animals that are being prepared for our consumption. Therefore whether there is some sort of GM contamination in the body of the animals with a GM diet, it allows me to make my own stance on the potential risks and safety of GMOs for animals and humans. With conductive research on scholarly articles and journals that investigate the study of animals fed GM Crops, I plan to explain to my audience that GM foods have more benefits
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.
During the Ragtime era Upton Sinclair felt that people should be educated on what happens to their food a social issue that can be found happening today as people are demanding to know what’s in their food. Furthermore, Labeling Genetically Modified food is the best way to educate customers about what they are consuming. Polls conducted by professional news organizations, including the Washington Post, MSNBC and Reuters/NPR consistently show that over 90% of consumers want GMO ingredients labeled. As ABC News stated, “Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.” This study shows how many people are adamant to have GMOs labeling. Pam Pinto, owner of Act Natural Health and Wellness in Torrington Connecticut. “I strongly feel that GM food should be labeled.” Pinto said, “We should not be our Government's experiment.”
Genetically modified foods, otherwise known as GM foods, have been the source of enormous controversy for the past several decades. Both sides of the debate for and against GM foods bring empirical evidence to the table in an effort to disqualify the opposition, and it is clear that much is a stake for the companies and people involved. But what does this mean for the average consumer? When the politics are shunted aside, people still want to know if what they’re eating is safe, and good for (or at least neutral to) our environment. In this essay, I will attempt to shed light on these questions with hard facts and separate the political fictions from truth. To do so, I will first explain what
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
One of the, if not thee, most controversial topics within the scientific world and the food industry is the use of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in everyday food. The fear of the unknown is what has resulted in a lot of discrepancies for consumers worldwide. It has resulted in activists (see The Non-GMO Project) making waves; expressing their concerns to the public and getting governmental attention worldwide. It is important to know the difference between facts and speculation when analyzing the pros and cons of consuming modified foods.