Gmos In Third World Countries: Article 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

GMO’s have been found to have allergy risk, when modification happens proteins may mix that were not in the original organism, causing reactions ("Pros & Cons of GMO Food”).. A positive aspect of genetic modification is seeds become resistant to insect pest, this allows for a higher yield. A constant risk of GMO food is the genetic modified genes may escape into the wild. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports some GMO food have shown to be engineered to be nutrius in mineral and vitamin. This can be a key factor in helping fight malnutrition in the world. According to Iowa State University, when GMO’s are consumed they can make actual medications less effective in the body. Oklahoma State University reports that the increase of GMO crops and animals often requires less chemicals, time and tools, and may help to reduce environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and soil erosion. GMO’s have several positive and negative

In the world, more than half of the people do not know about GMOs. This means that those people would not understand the health issues that one healthy food could contain. By these

Over the past few decades a new controversy has arisen in the scientific community: should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) be used in modern society. There are generally two sides to this debate: one being in favor of GMO use and the other against it. Pro GMO activists believe that GMOs can help address hunger issues and help reduce use of pesticides/insecticides while Anti-GMO activists state that it is a threat to the agriculture industry, and should be banned. Both sides have several valid points, however GMO’s are even more complicated from initial glance, and may not be as dangerous as some believe.

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

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.

Even if there are many negative affects on the world from GMOs, in addition it also shows a positive side. In the debate between Mark Lynas and Colin Tudge, Lynas mentions “Sometimes genetic modification is needed to bring in

One of the greatest accomplishments since 1982 is the invention of GMOs. They were first approved by the FDA in 1982 for Humulin, insulin that has genetically engineered E. coli bacteria. The thinking behind GMOs was to develop crops that were resistant to pests and diseases in addition to improve nutritional content. GMOs have helped numerous people around the world. They have made farmer’s crops have better yields and a more successful growing season. GMOs are beneficial and should be promoted because they are more economical and they increase productivity in agriculture; however, the opposition believes GMOs potentially cause health issues.

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.

John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution states that “if genetically engineered plants were designed to reverse world hunger, you would expect them to bring higher yields. But there is increasing evidence that they do just the opposite”. Numerous studies have shown that GM crops do not have a higher yield production, but in fact have at times shown a lower outcome. In 2000, “research done by the University of Nebraska found the yields of GE soybeans were six to eleven percent lower than conventional plants” (Robbins). Evidence that GM foods are not the answer to world hunger continues to pile up. Former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman acknowledges that GM crops are not beneficial to solving world hunger: “as of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one” (“10 Reasons Why we don’t Need GM Foods”). Genetically modified corn is a product that has been modified to the extreme in recent years. Here, you can clearly see the physical differences between organic and GM corn. In response to Monsanto’s statement, eighteen African delegates clearly objected, noting that it would undermine their capacity to feed

This article examines how Genetically Modified food is unsafe for the people's health. This article talks about how by consuming GM foods can give you health problems and why it does ( gives you specific examples in the article). The good thing about this article is that it gives you information why GM foods are not safe and also gives you data about why is it unsafe for someone's health. The usefulness of this source for answering my research paper is that it helps by giving me data to actually prove why GMO labeling is necessary for food products. The bias this source is towards my argument. This source helps me answer my research question by explaining the negative side effects of GM foods, showing that just because a label has a GMO label

Television, of course, is a huge advertiser. We witness lots of food commercials that claim to have so many of these desperately needed vitamins.GM foods are what these commercials are really advertising. Consumers are bound to have a laundry list of questions two being: Do these foods really exist? Do they really help? There were foods genetically modified in Africa to contain beneficial mineral, vitamins, and proteins."The proposed altered cassava plant is an illustration. The cassava is a starchy root eaten by people in tropical Africa. Approximately 40% of the food calories in this land come from cassavas. GM cassavas boast increased minerals, vitamin A, and protein content. The nutrient dense food can help prevent childhood blindness, iron deficiency anemia, and infections due to damaged immune system"( qtd. in Goldbas, 21). This illustration answers the consumers' questions in entirety. It shows how a popular, common, native plant was genetically modified to bring about nutritional value to the people who is fond and familiar with it. This being one of the pros of GMO foods.This also proving that aconsumer's favorite fruit or vegetable, one with very few nutritional benefits, can be genetically arranged to give the consumers the vitamins and nutrients that they long for. Agricultural biotechnology can have positive effects on human health by decreasing

There are many possible advantages of GMOs such as a larger food supply for those who cannot afford it, and farmers can grow more crops at a much faster rate. While the positive effects are long, many people consider GMOs to be bad for humans. These people base their arguments on two main points: that GMOs are unhealthy and they have possible dangerous side effects. On the other hand, according to Tamar Haspel of the Washington Post, many sources are extremely biased and very few can be

It’s clear that Genetically modified foods have negative impact on the consumers. Furthermore, the production of the GMOs results to increased use of herbicides and other chemicals. This chemical have a negative effect on the environment. Furthermore, the genetically modified foods have possibilities of producing unpredictable side effects. All this effects have costs that results to the process of combating them. Therefore, the negative impacts and associated costs of the negative impacts outweighs the cost of producing the food in the

Health is a concerning issue in the world. Health can’t be restored when it’s gone, so people are debating over choosing a good solution, to either genetically modify foods or is it a risk for human health. Bryan Walsh agreed that food should be modified, so that is the reason for his argument over genetically modified food. Oppositely, Shelley Stonebrook is against it, and she wrote an article about four potential health risks of eating GMO foods. Although, both have strong evidence. Stonebrook is less persuasive. I disagree with Walsh mostly, and his article is not effective enough because he is concerned about how it works financially, even though he was effective.