Is China Ready For Gm Rice?

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.

The industrial food chain is where the farmers take care of a large amount of one type of crop. In this section of the book the best example of the persuasive technique pathos is when Pollan writes about how on a feedlot most of the cattle are sick (Pollan 58). The cows corn-based diet is what makes them sick. The author is trying to make the reader feel guilty because the cows eat a corn-based diet so they can produce fatter meat for consumers. The finest way of portraying logos is when talking about GMO ( genetically modified organisms) corn and how they are created in a laboratory by adding genes to corn DNA (Pollan 25). The author is trying to help readers understand about how GMO corn works. The best example of ethos is when Pollan claims that “Many farmers like George Naylor refuse to grow GMO crops” (Pollan 25). The author is portraying how George Naylor is a credible and reliable source since he is a farmer against GMO crops, which makes readers think how if a farmer thinks GMO crops are bad then they should too. These are the best examples of pathos,logos and ethos in this

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.

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

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.

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

Genetically modified crops are an incredibly important issue that everyone should be aware of since it is something we are exposed to at a daily basis. Genetically modified crops also known as GM crops or Biotech crops has been one of the most heated debates of issues within our society. The debate about the safety, concerns and disadvantages of GM crops have raged since the mid 1990 's but this is due to the lack of knowledge of the general public. Many people are unaware of what the GM crops actually are and what they offer. Genetically modified crops are plants that are used in the agriculture and have been modified to initiate a new trait to plants that does not happen naturally in the species. These plants are modified using genetic engineering techniques to enhance desired traits. GM crops are made when genes of commercial interest are transferred from one organism to another.() There are many methods used for the production of GM crops but the two primary used for plant insertion are gene guns and agrobacterium tumefaciens. There are also three types of modifications which are transgenic, cisgenic, and subgenic plants. However, there are a number of issues that surround this controversial topic such as environmental, health, and economic concerns. Even though there are some worrying facts about GM crops people don 't realize the advantages or the ways it has helped humans as well as animals. There are many reasons why GM crops are proven

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.

Over the past decades, agriculture technology and productivity has been changing drastically to fit the needs of the world population. The largest agricultural production country, the United States, has been experiencing these changes more rapidly just to meet these agricultural demands. This in turn has lead to serious controversies over the ethics and morals of some agricultural practices, namely Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). With the US population increasing every year, US farmers had to develop some way to meet the high demands of the people, therefore, GMOs were developed to help increase crop yields while also helping farmers financially by using less pesticides and herbicides.

In addition, the article substantiates the importance of pre-market and post-market analysis of GMOs so as to determine overall safety. The article cites several other research papers by other authors from the scientific community that adds overall credibility to the source. Dr. Harry A. Kuiper is involved in safety assessment of residues of Agrochemicals in food, of health protecting compounds and of genetically modified foods. He was leader of various national and EU-financed projects concerning food safety. Gijs A. Kleter Has a background in post‐graduate biochemical and biomedical research. His main areas of recent publications include the safety of GMOs to be used as food and/or feed, as well as the early identification of emerging food safety risks. Hub P. J. M. Noteborn is a MT-member NVWA having managerial and co-ordinating duties in the process of integrated risk assessment, and leader of the unit. His job is accountable for designing strategic and conceptual aspects and managing national and international (research) programmes. Esther J. Kok is involved in Genomics, Biotechnology, Food Quality and Safety. This article is an extremely relevant source as it provides examples of the various testing methods in determining food safety and demonstrates the unsafe factors and potential risk in consuming

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.

However, these risks are purely speculative: 81 separate studies costing approximately $65 million have been conducted by the European Commission alone and have shown no evidence of any risk linked to GM foods (1). Indeed, the U.S. has concluded that the risk of GM crops is minimal. As a result, in the U.S., genetically altered crops accounted for 93% of planted soybeans and cotton and 86% of corn in 2009. (2). Considering the success and benefits of GM crops in America, developing countries have followed suit. In 2009, India planted 84,000 square kilometers of genetically modified cotton, and Brazil planted 214,000 square kilometers of GM soybeans, a 26% increase from the year before (3). Like the U.S., these countries conducted a risk-benefit analysis and concluded that the economic, health, and food surplus benefits of GM crops offset the unproven risks (4). Thus, agricultural biotechnology is being implemented in farming techniques throughout the world.

Most public concern has been focused on human health and safety regarding the use and consumption of these foods, but potential environmental impacts are important to consider as well. Many varieties of genetically engineered crops are intended to decrease the need for chemical pesticides and fertilizers, but the scope of environmental impacts does not stop at chemical usage. Common concerns about GM crops include the effects of cross-pollination, so-called “genetic contamination,” and the escape of GM crops from cultivation and their interactions with native species. Conversely, the environmental benefits of GM crops range from reducing dependence on chemical pesticides to the ability to treat polluted soils with bioremediating plants (Ford, 2004).

In this brief, the reader will see how organic and genetically modified organisms are viewed and interpreted. They will see the “facts” about the genetically modified organisms and organic organism, and how producers and consumers view this. The reader will be able to understand what is actually happening to genetically modified organisms and organic organisms during the production and when it is getting processed. They will also learn about certified organic and the USDA organic and how each one is determined in the production. Everybody has an opinion about organic and GMO and believes which ones are better. The reader of this paper will also learn the differences between organic and GMOs and the pros and cons of each of them. After reading this paper the reader will be educated on what to buy at the grocery store between organic and GMO. Organic and GMO will always be a topic that has controversy.