How Media Influence On The Opinion Of Public On Certain Topics

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.

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.

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

It being the leading source of news since the printing press. We put our faith in the media to report accurate facts unbiasedly. Between 1983 and now the media industry has consolidated from 50 individual companies to 6. That means that though the impression given is that there are a multitude of sources to attain information, the messages being communicated are all one in the same. The limitation of media sources cause a ripple effect of limited information, allowing these companies to control the public’s perception on

In his article “No, You Shouldn’t Fear GMO Corn” published at Slate.com in 2012, Jon Entine argues that genetically engineered crops pose no harm to health or environment, and the conclusion Caitlin Shetterly made is absurd and holds no water.

Mohr showed focused attention to the public’s values and beliefs by presenting Monsanto’s interests in protecting its consumers and the earth through spending millions of dollars to stop GMO labeling. He offered one side of the story and not the other, which is a good strategy in an argument if the other story outweighs Mohr’s claim. What Mohr omitted are the facts regarding the benefits to be harbored in labeling GMO products in the future. Mohr was focused on the present state of the matter without due consideration of the future, hence making his appeal to Pathos

These concerns are about the potential of illnesses GMOs could cause. An article observes, “In the 20-plus years on the market, GMOs have not caused or contributed to a single illness or death” (“GMO Myths Vs. Facts”). There have not been any traces of illnesses after multiple testing of GMO products. Since there are only ten commercially farmed genetically modified crops in the United States, the possibility of people getting a disease from them is rare; especially because three of the crops are mainly for feeding livestock. People have believed multiple problems are linked to GMOs. For instance, “in 2013, the journal food and chemical toxicology retracted a paper linked to herbicide roundup and round up-tolerant GM corn to cancer and premature death in rats… they found researchers had used too few rats… and the results were inconclusive” (Colbert, par. 16). Since the researchers did not have enough evidence, the possibility of the problem being GMOs are

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 this article, Tamara Thompson asks common questions regarding genetically modified organisms otherwise known as GMOs. She gives a decent definition of GMOs as plant seeds that are modified to resist certain insects as well as harsh weather conditions. It is a very biased article, drawing attention to the company, Monsanto, in particular. She repeatedly assures her readers that GMOs are safe and that Monsanto currently works to the standards of organizations, such as the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA), Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She concludes with the benefits of GMOs nutritional value and how they contribute to reducing draws on natural resources such as fossil fuels. This article was beneficial, although biased it gave insight to what companies such as Monsanto want the public to believe. I found this article in Opposing Viewpoints with the search entry being genetically modified foods.

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

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

In our democratic society, mass media is the driving force of public opinion. Media sources such as Internet, newspaper, news-broadcasts, etc, play significant roles in shaping a person’s understanding and perception about the events occurred in our daily lives. As long as the newspapers, internet, network television, etc, continued to be easily accessible to the public, the media will continue to have an influence in shaping its opinions. Factors such as agenda-setting, framing and priming help shape the public opinions. Agenda-setting is when the media focuses their attention on selected issues on which the public will form opinion on, whereas framing allows the media to select certain aspects about the problem and then

The media has always had a powerful impact on public opinion in Britain. With several different types and means of communication, such as TV, newspapers, social networking and radio, it is difficult for the public to not be even slightly impacted by the opinion of thousands that surrounds them every day. However, with newspapers spinning stories to promote the party they favour (such as the Daily Mail in favour of Conservatives or the Mirror in favour of Labour ) or to disparage the opposition, is it clear there is any obvious influence from the media towards the public in relation to reporting on British Politics?

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