The Gmo Debate Is Over Again By Mark Lynas

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.

The world of GMO’s is a very back and forth world, one side insists it is good, one side insists it is horrible. A woman named Robyn O'Brien, who is part of an organization who is against GMO’s (genetically modified organism), gave a Tedtalk, an informative lecture, about GMO’s, whether they are good for you or not. Each side has come up with their own way of explaining their side of the story, and everyone has had some influences to sway what they are saying. Robyn for example, used a Pathos (emotional) argument, and was influenced by what she does for work, and her family.

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

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.

Monsanto one of the leading companies of GMOs has recently placed ads on television for people to get educated about GMOs. For many people, GMOs stand in a gray area, as many do not have the background or do not fully understand what constitutes a GMO. According to a Pew survey approximately 88% of scientists believe that GM foods, like corn, soy, canola, and beets, are safe to consume. Although a majority of scientists believe that GM foods are safe for consumption only 37% of the general public believe that GM foods are safe(Lee Raine, Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society, Pew Research Center). Creating a gap of more than 50% between the two groups. In a short survey done at San Francisco State, we have found that four out of twelve people believe that GMOs are harmful, with the remaining eight believing that it is either harmless or unsure about its effects (Chen, Eric. “GMO Effects” Survey.). This shows that a lack of education is not the reason why people believe whether or not GMOs are harmful. When asked about their reasoning, answers were mixed. Some believed that GMOs contained chemicals that should not be consumed while other believed that the risk factor is minimal. There are many reasons why people believe what they believe about GMOs. Claire Marris discusses many of these reasons in ``Public Views on GMOs: Deconstructing the Myths.``, One of the points was that some people did not have the knowledge to understand GMOs, but they are aware of their own lack of understanding, ``participants were conscious of this technical ignorance…``. But the main point in Marris’ article is that they are not necessary wrong. Some people showed concerns about the safety of consuming GMOs, ``the principal concern expressed about GMOs were not based on erroneous information…``. Meaning that people that are anti-GMO are so because they believe that there could be any

GMOs are essentially in every food in the grocery stores, and the companies are not obligated by law to tell their buyers. They do not need to put anything on their product about including GMOs or not (Text 3, Line 40-42). Opposers of GMOs also use this fact to display that the government and food industry is feeding these GMOs to us and some do not even know it. One piece of evidence that this side utilizes, is the fact that there is enough food for “‘ the world right now. It’s not the deficiency of technology that’s a problem for developing countries,’” it stems from “‘poverty, corruption and poor distribution’” (Text 1, Line 18-19). This faction states this because sometimes favors of GMOs will say it assists food production for those in third world countries, but in fact that is not

Most consumers are unaware of what is really going into their food because producers like Monsanto fail to include a label stating that their produce is a GMO product. One example of this is the fruits and veggies seen in the produce aisle with labels stating that they are ‘organic’. In reality, they are only 95% organic. The other 5% is made up of pesticides to keep that vivid green celery as appealing as ever. Major companies and GMO defendants may argue that labelling GMO’s will do more harm than good. “By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand” (Scientific American 1). This may be true, but without labels, companies like Monsanto are basically deceiving the public. Furthermore, most GMOs are injected with substances that are normally toxic to humans, such as glyphosate, which removes the nutrients from the food and replaces it with chemicals. “Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it” (Honeycutt 1). Zen Honeycutt is a strong opponent against GMOs, and was chosen to write an article about GMOs by a representative of the De Dell

Although consumers may have just noticed the non GMO label on their Campbell soup can or Clif Bar wrapper, genetic engineering has been a controversial debate for decades. A genetically modified organism, or GMO, is any organism in which the DNA has been altered through genetic engineering. With recent advancements in science, the embroilment and dispute about the ethics and regulations regarding GMO’s have heated up-as well as the spread of misunderstandings and deceptions. As is typical with scientific controversy, the compromise between society and science is often hard fought and complex with too many provisions. Society is flooded with false information from businesses and lobbyists to elicit fear of change, while the scientific community

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

One of the most unfortunate realities relating to GMOs are the practices of the companies producing them and the governments protecting their behaviour. GMOs have become an international issue that greatly affects health, agriculture, the environment and national economies, which will be the focus of this speech. More specifically, this essay will argue that GMOs are more of a loss than a benefit to people’s health, the environment and local economies, and therefore GMO-producing companies must take on more ethical practices or cease to

As human beings, we rely on food every day, and without it we wouldn’t be able to function properly. Over the decades, with our fast pace advances in production and new technology we are able to produce large quantities of food with Genetically Modified Organisms. GM foods are produced because of the idea that consumers and producers both have an advantage to obtaining these products. For Example, GM products hold many benefits, from nutritional value to durability against environment. GM productions were concentrated mostly on producers to benefit the farmers in their products by aiming to increase the crop protection and resistance to plant diseases or viruses. Considering these new advances; consumers, farmers and policymakers worldwide are challenged to reach consent with a clear vision for the future of the world’s food supply. The contemporary GMO food debate illustrates the serious conflict between two groups: Biological Recombinant DNA investors and affiliated scientists who consider this technology a solution to food shortages; and independent scientists, environmentalists, farmers and consumers that suggest these advances increase risk to environmental and health issues.

In the present day, if people were asked to name a controversial issue related to genetics, genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) would definitely come up most of the time. This topic has been all over the news for the past few years and it has caught people’s attention. Do they benefit society as a whole? Are they a threat to the public’s health? Should scientists even manipulate genes in organisms? A great deal of questions and doubts have arisen regarding GMO’s and people keep debating on whether they are good or bad.

The word GMOs or genetically modified organisms is being used a lot in the media and politics. Many may wonder what exactly GMOs are? By definition GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. This may include the mutation, insertion, or deletion of genes. Hearing that may make many individuals not want to eat anything that has been missed with in that manner. Around ten thousand years ago when man realized they didn’t have to chase there food around they could grow it. They then started manipulated Food and animals. Every living thing has DNA which has chromosomes and genes and we as people have been messing with them since man learned to farm food with selective breeding. Although food industries argue that genetic engineering is just an extension of traditional breeding, which humans have been doing for thousands of years. Many questions people have are, can GMOs be bad for us? How common are GMOs? What is the difference between genetically engineered plants and plants altered through natural hybridization processes? The effects of eating genetically engineered foods are still unknown. Studies that led to the market release of certain genetically modified seeds were conducted by the same companies and the data have not been released for the public to see. One of the reasons for developing plants based on GM organisms

Since their discovery in the 1980s to today in 2016, the implication of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in agriculture is ruthlessly debated and discussed with no real solution or overwhelming majority on one position. The global advancement in modern science and technology has brought forth many innovations and inventions that are designed to overcome various life challenges. GMOs are one such innovation that has been created to help alleviate agricultural problems and enhance the simple act of growing crops. GMOs, a term used to describe the development of animals or plants whose genetic material is altered in order to be a superior version of the traditional one, are seen as a significant development in science that can solve problems related to agricultural practices. It is deemed a technological advancement that can improve the problems related to food production and starvation. However, many critics believe that GMOs can be a potential hazard to the environment, animals, and humans alike. In addition, many people are concerned about the consumption of crops that are chemically changed in place of crops that are naturally grown with little scientific intervention. The implementation of GMOs brings forth a pivotal environmental issue because GMOs can pose as a future solution to agricultural production and world hunger but also have the potential to cause harm to humans and the environment.

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.