Monsanto Argument Paper

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.

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.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, are foods that have been prepared through the gene-splicing techniques of biotechnology. Although GMOs have been all over the world for numerous years, it wasn’t till just lately that individuals have become more concerned with them. Though, countless industries and corporations that produce genetically modified organisms, like Monsanto, attempt to make believe that the foods they harvest are healthy and valuable for the environment; though that may be correct at first glimpse, numerous anti-GMO protestors are certain that these corporations trick people into believing corrupt information. In this essay, we will uncover the pros and cons of these foods and ultimately, come to the assumption that GMOs may have letdowns for

Recently, there has been controversy on whether GMOs are favorable, or synthetic and faulty. Although, many are not actually informed properly about what GMOs actually are. A GMO is a genetically modified organism, in which its DNA is taken and implanted into another plant or animal. Filmmaker, Jeremy Seifert, is quite precarious on the subject, considering there is not much we really know about these genes. Jeremy says “I suddenly felt uneasy about the food we were eating,” (Seifert). We are unaware of the health and safety risks that come with the use of these genes on everyday food items. It is evident that there is a mass amount of positives and negatives. However, the powerful weight of the negatives seem to have a larger impact than the positive ideas within it.

One of the most controversial topics of our time is GM technology (GMO). Is it safe or not? The emotive nature of this topic is justified considering the fact that food is paramount to human well-being; all claims should be carefully examined. However, modern scientific studies contradict commonly held opinions opposing GMO’s which are in fact founded on myths and misinformation. There are currently 2000 peer-reviewed reports which document the safety and wholesomeness of GM foods. (Genera.2014) My goal in this paper is to help open dialogs between activists and the scientific community. Green activists and privileged world citizens deny life and health to millions when they block the progress and use of genetic modification.

Declaring the negative effect of GMO products on human health and the environment and forcing scientists to think differently all over the world,

I agree with Bjorn lomborg, because I believe that GMOs can help many people in third world countries receive the nutrients they need and lack. In the article the author uses the title The deadly opposition to GMO¨ to foreshadow the topic of his article, which is that being against gmos is a bad thing. The author does this by talking about anti-gmo campaigners, Greenpeace who oppose the use of gmos and how their alternative to gmo crops are non sustainable or cost effective. The author does give pros and cons to the gmo crops.

A current popular debate nowadays is whether or not we should label our food products that contain GMOs. A more important issue would be whether or not his will positively or negatively impact society by misguiding the truth about GMOs or ruining economies of several states. GMO foods should not be negatively publicized because; there is no correlation between most GMO’s and health risks, it would negatively affect the companies, and GMOs actually benefit world food production.

There is much controversy when discussing the topic of Genetically Modified Organisms. Whether it may concern moral or ethical factors, there always seems to be considerable arguments either defending or arguing against GMOs. Based on research, GMOs prove to be extremely present in our food supply worldwide. Chemical engineering, fertilization, as well as other methods of manufacturing come into question when formulating an opinion on GMOs. Due to the manipulation of biotechnology that effectively yields products like GMOs, the public is not only susceptible to whatever side effects that may come with chemically altered produce but also the mind boggling conscience of consuming food that isn’t necessarily “all natural” or “natural”.

Critics would suggest that the widespread dependence on Monsanto’s GM seeds gives the company too much power over the global food supply*. Critics are also skeptical about the threat GMOs pose on human health. Despite broad scientific consensus that GM foods pose no greater risk than conventionally grown foods, sixty four countries including the European Union, Brazil, Australia, Japan, and China require foods containing GMO ingredients to be labelled. The main topics of controversy concerning genetically modified organisms are: their effect on the environment, the regulations enforced on their production and international trade, their effects on human and animal welfare, those who profit from the GMO marketplace, and ethical, moral, and religious beliefs. In order to choose a side in the GMO controversy, we must open-mindedly draw out the strengths and weaknesses presented by both

In recent years a controversy has broken out over genetically modified organisms. The concept of genetically modified (GM) crops is isolating the DNA of plants and taking the best traits of both plants and fusing them together to create a bigger, longer lasting, more efficient crop and increase land productivity. Some people believe them to be dangerous and others believe they are harmless and even beneficial. I also met a friend a few years back who is allergic to GMO. I decided to do my research paper on the topic of GMOs, whether or not they are harmful, and the different viewpoints people have concerning them. I chose to evaluate the Institute of Responsible Technologies’ article titled GMO Education written by Jeffrey Smith for my source critique, and assess how educational the source is on this topic.

The next step in controlling the public narrative is through continued funding of GMO research supporting not only the safety of GMO’s, but the lack of adverse environmental

When GMOs first became “a thing” in 1996, the United States immediately began planting them in many rapidly increasing areas. (Lucht, 2015, p.4257) These plants were mostly insect and herbicide-resistant. The US was not alone in its support for GMOs seeing as Argentina, India, China and Canada all began planting GMOs as well. (Lucht, 2015, p.4257) No one seemed to see anything wrong with this movement until the first US shipments of GM soy arrived in Europe and protests breached. In contrast to many other countries, the European Union is against GM foods. Some EU countries (Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia) grow GM maize and have actually publicized that it has benefitted them and their economies. (Lucht, 2015, p.4256) When consumers were asked in Europe if GM food should be supported, more than half disagreed. If anything in Europe is genetically modified it must state that it is on the label. (Twardowski, 2015) This runs true even if the product is physically and chemically the same as the untouched product. Because of this skepticism shown in Europe about whether or not GMOs could be trusted, suspicions in the US arose as well. Consumers began to make the argument that if we weren’t told what we are eating was being genetically modified, are we really aware of what we are eating? (Bunge, 2016) Many consumers believed that their values and beliefs were being mocked.

Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales, authors of “Genetically modified crops: hope for developing countries?”(2001) argues for genetically modified food to be grown in developing countries in attempt to alleviate starvation and assist those countries in joining the developed world. The author supports this by immediately identifying and addressing prominent counter-arguments, displaying a localized need of the technology (soon to be globalized), and examining how harshly GMOs are criticized with specific comparisons to deforestation and other climate change variables. The authors ' intended audience is educated voter populations and politicians, in order to make an impact on the GMO debate. Herrera-Estrella 's and