Kensi Laube
Professor Wooster
Critical Thinking
18 July 2017
Module 8 Discussion Our lesson this week discusses how we can organize our thoughts when we think critically by using patterns in the form of relationships. John Chaffee explains that these relationships can be further divided into five separate types: chronological, process, comparative, analogical, and causal. To review the contrasting organizational patterns of GMO vs non-GMO, I used the comparative relationship. In Thinking Critically, Chaffee defines comparative patterns of thinking as a relationship that “relate[s] things in the same general category in terms of their similarities and differences” (356). By using this particular relationship, I was able to determine my opinion on genetically modified or engineered organisms. More specifically, a plant that has been genetically
…show more content…
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
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
In the essay “Genetically Modified Food: Watching What We Eat,” by Julie Cooper, she argues against the rampant use of genetically modified food (GMO) without any current form of regulation. Cooper discusses the possibility of health risks to those consuming foods with altered genes and the food’s capabilities to have far-reaching health risks. She continues with a discussion as to how and why the creation and use of the GMOs have become so unregulated. She then discusses the response, which is the public’s cry for their right to make informed choices. Other topics discusses are the political, environmental, and corporate ramifications of the rise of GMOs.
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.
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.
Many will argue that Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs) are not safe for human consumption, however they are almost inevitable for our everyday food consumption. Some argue that the recent increase in gluten intolerance is caused by GMO foods (Argument against). Other state that the risk to humans by GMO’s is relatively small (The GMO”). The bottom line is what people put into their bodies is a personal choice and a person should be able to easily tell if a product has been genetically modified or not.
Franken-Fears: An Analysis of Chapter 6 in The Book “The Food Police” Chapter 6, titled Franken-Fears, in the book, “The Food Police”, discusses the hot button topic of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and how they play an integral role in feeding the world. If one were to google “Genetically Modified Organisms”, they would immediately see that about half of the articles are vehemently against the use of GMOs and about half are enthusiastically supporting the use of GMOs. It is quite difficult to sift through all the so called “facts”, so Jayson Lusk comprised a whole chapter dedicated to the real facts about GMOs.
Due to reading “Stuffed and Starved” by Raj Patel this semester, I learned about how foods are produced and impact the world. Ever since I visited the farmer’s market in October, I became more aware of whether or not I am consuming genetically modified crops. Raj Patel revealed some of the many truths about the Green Revolution regarding genetically modified crops that influenced my choice of eating. Prior to reading the section of the book that made me aware of what I am eating, I believed that genetically modified crops were more beneficial than harmful to everyone. Not only did the genetically modified crops produce a higher yield to feed people, but the negative impact of technology outweighed its benefit. For example, Patel states, “domestic
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 this unit, the two periods of biology studied and learned more about GMO’s. We looked into things such as breeding and eugenics and how exactly it relates to the overall action of genetically modifying organisms. A genetically modified organism is the result of a gene from one organism, purposefully being changed to improve another organism. According to americanradioworks, organisms were being manipulated dating all the way back to prehistoric times to the 1900s. Farmers and naturalists began to notice “hybrid” plants, being produced through natural breeding. In 1900, European plant scientist began using Gregor Mendel's genetic theory to manipulate plants to produce a more desirable outcome. This means that Organisms have been getting genetically modified for years. Although the event of this action dates back for years, controversies are still shared in classrooms and homes, about whether GMOs are a necessary part of today’s life.
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.
This article brings about a vital question to the forefront, are GMOs really safe? The article goes on to dissect all the myths about genetic modification and points out the fact that there has been no strict regulation on the production
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.
Imagine a world where crops are genetically modified using genes from another organism. GMOs are dangerous to be placed in crops that other countries banned it. GMOs affect the body in many ways. Farmers uses GMOs to speed up farming time and spend less money for other products to assist in farming. By examining the dangers of why countries banned GMO, how GMOs affect the body, and farmers use it as a cheap way to farm, it is clear that GMO has a negative affect on our crops.
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