Chelsea Salgado English 7:30 November 12, 2015 Rhetorical Analysis Paragraphs 1-3 “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 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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Phillips and David Corkindale in Marketing GM Foods: The Way Forward, “GMO foods have been around, globally, since the 1990s, and have been advertised to two main markets, the farmers/producers and the consumers”. GMO companies are challenged with the public’s perception about the benefits or negatives of GMO foods. The basic premise of GMO foods is misunderstood by the general public as a particular kind of food. Some consumers view these food as dangerous just because they are labeled with GMO. Many people have this thought but it is not true, GMO foods today have no higher health risk than the regular non-GMO foods. Consumers care about what goes into their food but if you care about nutrition look beyond the
It is imperative that GMOs gain more popularity, and fast, before more consumers view them as “unsafe” and boycott them. In the future, GMOs will be a much needed “solution to feeding the world's population, which is expected to skyrocket from 7 billion today to 10 billion by 2050” (Potenza, par. 5). In order for the public to establish the idea that GMOs are safe, the government will provide funds to pay for a series of initiatives to educate the public on the safety of GMOs. This would include a unit about genetically modified organisms in schools, scientist endorsements, and posters and pamphlets in grocery stores.
It can be difficult to discern as to why there is so much controversy over genetically modified ingredients within our food supply. I myself have heard so many accounts of the opposing sides to this debate and some things can get misconstrued along the way. The article “FAQs about GMOs” by Jean Halloran presents specific questions and answers related to the topic of genetically modified foods, or GMOs. Includes the effects that GMOs have on consumers’ health, social aspects of labeling GMOs, and environmental influences of GMOs.
Thesis: With the impending push for more widely available genetically modified or engineered organisms (GMOs), and the recent re-regulation of the labeling of such products, GMOs are an important topic worthy of class debate.
As many people walk through the grocery store, checking off the grocery list, looking to buy an item, there usually is a product that has a green label that says “GMO Free”. Questions go through his or her mind; Is GMO foods bad? How much better is non-GMO foods compared to GMO foods? Is it worth it? Many think it is not as bad as it sounds, but there is much more to it than just health risks when you consume GMO foods. It makes growing crops much more efficient, therefore benefitting the large corporations who grow and sell crops.
On Tuesday, November 04, 2014, voters in Colorado and Oregon went to the polls to decide whether or not foods that contain GMOs should be labeled (Krimsky). The debate around GMO foods centers in part on the question of whether they pose risks to human health. Considerable research has shown that they do. Furthermore, it is clear that the impact of the production of GMO foods goes beyond direct medical consequences, but also includes financial and environmental wellbeing.
Advocates and opponents have made very contrasting claims about the benefits and potential risks of GMOs, and each pointed to their own favourite pieces of evidence without any straight answer. In general, agro-biotechnologist advocates and crop science companies promote the use of GM technology as a risk-free alternative to enhance food quality in particular and for the overall economic benefits at large (Nelson, 2001). On the other hand, opponents including some scientist and environmentalist view the application of genetic modification in food crops as a lethal interference between the realm of nature and human leading to unknown health hazards, socioeconomic risks and regulatory constraints (Nelson, 2001). Incidentally, the nature of GM debate among the public and the experts is exceptionally different (Hansen et al., 2003). While consumers are more focused on tangible benefits such as price, features and tangible benefits of GM foods, expert’s differences of opinion are concentrated mostly in three major areas a) the safety regimes for both human and environment; b) regulatory framework of GMOs in local as well as international context and c) the allied economic constraints of commercialisation of GMOs (Paarlberg, 2002). Thus, literature cited in the present study are subdivided in accordance with these three major areas of conflict among the experts, including a brief discussion about the role of the media in GM
Genetically modified organisms are a breakthrough in biotechnology, and yet they have been met with scrutiny from a large portion of the public. While a recent one trillion meal study found no correlation between GMOs and various diseases, some still believe they have a negative impact on people. Instead of taking the traditional route and disproving the argument that GMOs are harmful, I decided to research some benefits they might have that the public may not think about. A basic understanding and definition of these organisms was laid out in the beginning of the paper, so that the reader would have the basic knowledge required to better understand the benefits these organisms provide. These benefits include lower fuel prices, saving money at the grocery store and at the pharmacy, and even preserving biodiversity.
Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs) are the result of artificial genetic modification of organisms. Typically plants and livestock are modified to resist disease, herbicides, and pests (Tsatsakis, et al). Furthermore, the biotech industry is growing in sales as well. In 2012, biotechnology generated about 323.8 billion US dollars (Tsatsakis, et al). While scientists search for the safest possible methods of genetic modification, many people disagree with the use of GMOs, and some actively try to shut down Biotechnology centers for their practices. Likewise, it is argued whether GMOs are safe enough to consume in our food. While many experiments and studies suggest that GMOs have some risk, no matter the method, many actually ignore the facts given that show us GMOs are more beneficial than harmful to our society.
There are many opinions on GMOs, many of which are bad. But, most opinions cannot be supported because of the limited information we have on GMOs. Still, I have collected the information that we do have and concluded that GMOs are good and should be used more often. This is because GMOs reduce pesticide use, GMOs can provide vaccines, proteins, and other pharmaceutical goods, and lastly, GMOs can provide food to prevent allergies. Although there is a big debate on whether GMOs are good or bad for you, with the limited information we have, I have chosen the most valuable reasons to support that GMOs are good.
GMOs have been proven to not be harmful to any humans. They have some potential issues, just like organic agriculture, but they also have many benefits to the environment and the economy. By understanding how GMOs are made, how they are used, and how they affect humans, the research provided shows that GM agriculture is just as beneficial to the world as organic
Proponents of GMOs assert that foods produced from GMOs are as safe as the non-modified counterparts. After reviewing the evidence, however, I strongly suspect that the consumption of GM foods puts consumers at risk. To start off, the safety of GM foods has become more questionable over time, as an increasing number of studies associate the ingestion of such food with various kinds of allergic reactions, serious illnesses and other conditions. Studies also indicate that chemical residue from the pesticides that the producers use on GMO crops is also dangerous to human health.
Genetically Modified Organisms also known as GMO’s are commonplace items today on the shelves of the local grocery store, or even the racks of the local department store. Technology today has allowed companies to modify the genetics of everything from corn and soybeans, to cotton and salmon. It hasn’t been known until now how many products really contain these genetically modified organisms. This paper will discuss the origins of GMO’s, the companies that produce these GMO’s, how GMO’s are created, the risks and benefits associated with GMO’s, and finally the ethical standpoint of GMO’s.
Genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) were first introduced over 20 years ago, but that doesn’t mean consumers know what GMO’s are and the benefits and drawbacks of them are.