Gmo Persuasive Speech Outline

The article contains necessary information to support why GMOs are more beneficial than harmful. The author believes that, “consumers should weigh the positives with the negatives and embrace this innovative process.” In the article, the author provides information about GMOs to be concerned about but successfully gives

Preview your Main Points: GMO’s have put millions of people around the world at serious health risks in order to gain the benefit of economic success. Unknown reactions from genetically modified food seem to be overlooked by many.

In conclusion, GMOs and pesticides are harmful and alarming to producers and consumers. They cause animals pain and harm humans when consumed. Many animals live short and painful lives, while humans now must suffer with long term diseases or damage to their bodies. Although some argue that Genetically modified produce is benefiting producers and consumers, I still argue that genetically modified organisms harm animals and

B. Those who oppose GMO’s will tell you the opposite. They say that GMOs are created in a lab with methods totally different from natural breeding methods. The say GMO’s can be toxic, allergenic, or less nutritious, they are not adequately regulated, and they actually increase pesticide use, as well as, create serious problems for farmers.

While the agricultural world is working hard to make positive influences on more efficient farming, individuals have treated GMO’s as a negative alteration in their produce. Farmers and researchers in the agricultural world claim no harm can be done by them. GMO’s have not yet been proven to be harmful to humans and have, in fac,t had a positive impact on the food industry today.

Transition: Along with the benefits of GMO’S, unfortunately, there must also be some negative effects of them.

“When you light a candle, you also cast a shadow.” – Ursula K. Le Guin. No matter what good some people believe they are doing, everything seems to come with a consequence, and the question is whether or not the good overpowers the bad. Many experts argue that Genetically Modified foods are actually beneficial to, not only people, but animals, plants, and the world overall. Some experts even state that, not only are they beneficial, but that they also protect the environment and aid food productivity. Most farmers actually recommend GMO’s because they are easier to grow, maintain, and tend to be more profitable; however, countless other experts have come to realize that GMO foods are untested, unsafe, and unhealthy. Studies indicate that

In an ever changing world, there are only a few things that are certain that all people need. It is said that a human can last three minutes without air, three hours without shelter, three days without water, and three weeks without food. The typical American farmer in 2017 feeds about 155 people compared to the 25.8 people in 1960. The thought of genetically modified organisms is nothing more than just a regulatory muddle. Agriculture is such a widely conversed topic however, through extensive research, international experiments, and general education, it is clear that genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are safe on all aspects as well as necessary to continue to feed the people.

“In a sweeping 400-page report, the country’s top scientific group found there was not evidence to support claims that genetically modified organisms are dangerous for either the environment or human health” (Heikkinen, 2016). Even Europe, a country that does not use this technology has proven that GMOs are a safe food source. “There is a scientific consensus, even in Europe, that the GMO foods and crops currently on the market have brought no documented new risks either to human health or to the environment” (Paarlberg, 2010). The biggest argument against GMOs would be that they are not safe to humans or the environment, but there has not yet been any documented evidence that approved GMOs have brought on new risks either to humans, animals or the environment (Paarlberg, 2010). Along with being scientifically proven numerous times to be a safe food source, there is also no confirmation that GMOs pose any risk to humans, animals, or the environment. “The central issue with GM crops is that because there are no concrete adverse effects for people to quantify, they can only focus on theoretical and largely unquantifiable ones” (Buiatti, Christou, & Pastore, 2013). Hundreds of experts have all concluded that GMOs have not presented any new risks to humans. “The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris organized a conference with 400 expert

So, in a panic, they spread word of heart problems, liver failure, and even cancer (Young 46). Dispersing false information of environmental damage, they argue on, using emotional catches to build support (Blake 4). But science is not running blindly into a snare; instead it is carefully progressing toward a better age, illuminating the future with possibility. Contrary to popular belief, there is no substantial evidence that GMOs have any harmful effects, not only after being extensively studied, but also after the consuming of trillions of meals containing GMOs (“GMOS: A Solution” 131). GMOs are environmentally sound, and also reduce the need for environmentally harmful agrichemicals (Blake 4). The most frustrating aspect of the debate on GMOs is that “those opposed to GMOs act like religious zealots unwilling to listen…dismissing out of hand the notion that the gene altering technology might be completely harmless or even a boon to humanity” (qtd Kruse & Thorn

GMO technology has made it easier for the farmers to spray their crop and watch it grow without having to go through any trouble. They say they use GMOs to produce more to feed the world, yet studies have shown that we have enough food to feed the world twice! So why go through all the trouble? Filmmaker Jeremy went to GMO companies asking one question: are there products safe? His main target was Monsanto, yet they avoided any questions and asked him to leave the premises, leaving Jeremy with high suspicions. The “Who can label Frankenfood?” article states that “For now, the FDA has determined that genetically modified ingredients don't require special labeling, but it has reserved the right to reverse course on that,” (Los Angeles Times). The items we eat daily could have been made by genetic engineering, but there is no

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.

One of the biggest issues in the ongoing debate over GM foods is whether they should be labeled to protect the public’s right-to-know privileges. Mandatory labeling regulations in European nations and several other countries are making a deeper examination of this issue in the United States (Ross). Even though some countries have mandated GMO labeling, the US should not mandate such law.

Most of the promises made by these corporations are promises of luxury, not necessity, and carry an inherently and dangerous risk. As science continues to understand further the basic element of life, DNA, the danger involved genetically modifying organisms becomes apparent. The beneficial potential genetic engineering brings are attractive, but paradoxically it also brings disastrous potential at a greater degree. The qualities brought forth by these GM foods are not necessary for our survival and only brings forth dangerous consequences to our health, environment, and economy. In order to

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