Genetically Modified Foods Video Analysis

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.

Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience to take action against genetically modified food and realize the risks of GMO’s.

Next, the authors write about how food has been modified throughout the years. They use the example of “cultivated rice, wheat, corn, soy, potatoes, and tomatoes have very little in common with their ancestors.” They use this example to go on to reveal that genetically modifying foods is nothing more than hybridization, or the mating of different plants of the same species to integrate the desired traits from several different varieties into a leading variety. The authors use the example of the tomato and how it is commonly bred with wild tomatoes to make the plant more resistant to pathogens, nematodes, and fungi while eradicating any unwanted traits from the wild plant such as toxins. This example, as a whole is a brilliant use of ethos. It displays that genetically modified foods are healthy and safe because it compares this new technology to a technique that has been done for thousands of years that has never been thought of as dangerous. More importantly, this comparison shows that the authors are credible and that they use their evidence wisely and correctly.

In 2009 a movie by the name of Food Inc. was released that challenged the production of food we eat. The movie examines everything from the science of seeds all the way through the consumption of the food, the food’s often negative effects on the body. The movie ends with the line “You can change the world with every bite”. This quote embodies the heart behind movie that change starts with the individual, and how they make food choices. This sort of change that Food Inc. invokes implies that top down change that the consumer can bring about change to the seed level. Food Inc. challenges the processes that allow companies like Monsanto to feed the world. We must understand how media like Food Inc. effects this mission to feed the world by examining the movie, the history of Monsanto as a company, and looking at the response from both sides to these challenges made in the public square to better combat and address issues brought forth.

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

After watching GMO & OMG, Fix Foods, Fed Up, and reading “ If you pitch it they’ll eat it”, I realize that I need to make changes to my eating habits and that there needs to be a humongous change in our food industry. For an example many of us don’t really pay attention to what we eat if it looks good or smells good we're going to want more. As they said in GMO & OMG “ The Supermodel Foods”. Us people we tend to buy the food that looks best to our preference and not if it’s actually good for us. In the documentary GMO & OMG by: Jeremy Seifert he argues and tries to bring to our attention that there’s Genetically Modified Organisms has been put in our food without our knowledge. But even when knowing this we still continue to buy the genetically

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.

The use of images and other visual aids has become an effective way to stake one’s claim on a situation since the popularization of media in all its forms. Companies, as well as different organizations, use images on their websites in the same way advertisers use websites, to persuade people to buy a certain product or believe in a certain cause. Genetically Modified Organisms have been a topic of negative commentary and The Non-GMO Project wishes to bring awareness of this topic to the public, utilizing their Verified stamp of approval as well as their website, which highlights many ways to live a GMO-free lifestyle. The Non-GMO Project, a credible stakeholder in the fight against Genetically Modified Organisms, uses images on their website to persuade people to live a healthier lifestyle by avoiding products containing these harmful Genetically Modified Organisms. The website is full of images that could make even the unhealthiest of people want to eat GMO free foods. The Non-GMO Project

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

The debate over genetically modified foods continues to haunt producers and consumers alike. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are foods that have been modified through bioengineering to possess certain characteristics. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or increased nutritional content (Whitman, 2000). The debate continues to grow as to whether these genetically altered foodstuffs are the answer to hunger in the coming years, or whether we are simply children playing with something that we do not have the capacity to understand. One of the biggest debates in the GMO issue is whether producers need to use labeling of

Given the large amount of perspectives that are taken into account in, it becomes quite difficult to grasp what has pushed the politics of food consumption to this point. For this review, the aim is to construct and assemble a better understanding of how GMOs contribute to consumerism and objectification of food.

The scarecrow works at an industrialized farming enterprise under the control of mechanized crows. In modern society, the scarecrow is perceived as a guardian defending the garden against crows. Though now the crows, the destroyers of food, are in charge of food production. While the scarecrows, the protectors of food, are widgets in its unnatural production. The crows are robot-drones with flaming radioactive eyes, symbolizing corrupt food corporations. The crow pecks and squawks at the scarecrow ordering him to work in the factory.

Considered one of the best-reviewed documentaries of 2005, (Taproot Journal 19) The Future of Food by Deborah Koons, focuses on the harmful impact genetically engineered food has and could possibly have on our society. Throughout the documentary, Koons maintains her stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by introducing different scientists who explain what GMOs are and the concerns they have with the use of them. The film has received great reviews. Koons is recognized for the great film structure and for the information she shares with the audience. She appeals to pathos and logos to convince viewers of the danger GMOs have on our society. Although Koons presents different downsides of the use

The first GMO foods were introduced to the market in 1994. It was the Flavr Savr tomato, developed and engineered by Calgene so foods had a longer shelf life by modifying their genetic code. Companies have fought on the other side of the battlefield, and falsely advertised that their products. A study published in Scientific Reports announced that products which contain GMO ingredients have lesser amount of nutrients than non-GMO products. In the las two decades organizations have fought to eradicate GMO products. Organizations such as GMO INSIDE are putting in their best efforts to make people aware of the dangers. One way they help open people’s eyes is by publish advertisements with strong visual images and emotional appeals. GMO INSIDE’s advertisement “Who’s making your baby a lab rat?” insinuates that parents should pay more attention to the ingredients in the food they buy for their babies. Through a cheerless image, and the rhetorical appeals of ethos and pathos, it points out that GMO ingredients are harmful for babies, for they do not provide enough nutrients.