The Road Not Taken By Robert Frost

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.

The analysis of “The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost has been up for debate since the poem release in 1916. It is known to be one of the most frequently misinterpreted poems of all time, and even Robert Frost himself has said the poem is “tricky” to comprehend (The). When analyzing this poem many readers tend to focus only on the last lines of the poem and get caught in a trap of selective-interpretation. Quite a few people after reading Robert Frost’s poem firmly conclude that this poem is about non-conformity and individualism, however, that is not the case. Robert Frost’s poem is meant to be analyzed line by line for a complete interpretation. Readers can conclude that the poem represents making choices in life, but that is not the

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.

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.

So, in a panic, they spread word of heart problems, liver failure, and even cancer (Young 46). Dispersing false information of environmental damage, they argue on, using emotional catches to build support (Blake 4). But science is not running blindly into a snare; instead it is carefully progressing toward a better age, illuminating the future with possibility. Contrary to popular belief, there is no substantial evidence that GMOs have any harmful effects, not only after being extensively studied, but also after the consuming of trillions of meals containing GMOs (“GMOS: A Solution” 131). GMOs are environmentally sound, and also reduce the need for environmentally harmful agrichemicals (Blake 4). The most frustrating aspect of the debate on GMOs is that “those opposed to GMOs act like religious zealots unwilling to listen…dismissing out of hand the notion that the gene altering technology might be completely harmless or even a boon to humanity” (qtd Kruse & Thorn

In the documentary Food Inc, directed by Robert Kenner, it highlights the perspective of those who oppose Monsanto and other companies that are modifying the food production industry by implementing GMO’s into their seeds. GMO’s, or genetically modified organisms, are living organisms that scientists have in some way changed the genome of to have the resulting organism, such as a seed or crop in the case of Monsanto, express a desired trait. Many think that genetically modifying a seed alters the genes of the plant to the point that it should no longer even be classified as the same plant. Also, many fear the adverse repercussions of consuming GMO’s and the effects that they have on human health. As said previously, one main contributor to

The argument of whether or not people should eat GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) or organic foods has been a debate for a long time. Organic food benefits health far more than genetically modified food that contains pesticides and animals that are raised on antibiotics growth hormones. Non-GMO foods are also safer for the environment in many ways: it conserves water, reduces soil erosion, increases soil fertility, reduces pollution, uses less energy, and does not affect the animals that live close to farms or graze on the farm like birds and chickens (Robinson). Yet GMO’s are beneficial society as food is produced in abundance and due to herbicides plant epidemics are not as common as they use to be. There are both positives and negatives to both sides of the argument, but there is common ground to be reached and identified.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are one the most hotly contested topics in the food industry due to the potential affects that they could have on the environment. Most of what the world eats today are GMO’s yet the majority of the population has no idea how GMO’s affect the world around them or the benefits and consequences of GMO’s. For example, sweet potatoes are natural GMO’s that were created around 8,000 years ago. GMO’s could have the potential to solve the upcoming Malthusian catastrophe or be extremely detrimental to the environment. In order to fully understand and utilize GMO’s in the future, people must be informed of the pros and cons that GMO’s could have on the environment and the world.

Edgar Allan Poe and Robert Frost influenced my thorough love of different styles of literature, particularly poetry. To the masses, Edgar Allan Poe and Robert Frost only share job titles, but the two poets share many similarities within their writing. Personally, I read pieces from both authors over the course of my schooling experience. I admired Robert Frost’s poem, “The Road Not Taken” from a young age, and that particular stole my heart since the first read. “The Raven,” became one of my favorite poems further down my schooling career, with its clear ominous tone that symbolizes much of Poe’s writing. Frost’s and Poe’s works may not seem similar, aside from the section in which their books reside within a library, but their work resembles each other’s quite well. Frost’s writing serves as a better introduction to poetry due to his easily relatable themes, his background connects to everyday audiences, and his use of modern language.

“The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost and “Death, be not proud” by John Donne are two poems with different meanings but share one of many of the same themes. Although the poems share different meanings as a whole, the reader can conclude the same common theme from both of these poems. Even though the reader may think the poems lack a same common theme, the theme is revealed by the end of both these poems. These two poems share the same theme of hopes and dreams. As the reader explores the same common theme of these two poems, the literary devices of personification, imagery, alliteration, metaphor, and irony can be seen throughout these poems as well.

It’s well known since 1994, genetically modified crops were introduced to U.S. markets. At first, scientists thought GMOs will create revolutionary remarks. GM crops are genetically fixed to be resistant against pests, disease or harsh weather conditions. They may sound like one of the greatest inventions. However, don’t let all the alleviating word deceive you. There has been several researches showing negative impacts that GMOs are capable of potentially. They are significant that majority of people think. Moreover, the reason that people don’t hear negative things about GMOs is that they are rather smaller scale researchers and government suppresses them. However, on the other hand, GMOs could be our key to resolve universal conflicts such as food shortages or hunger in third world countries. This continuing debate over GMOs once and for all.

This notion of poisonous GMOs, “food totalitarianism,” and burdening the Earth’s resources are driven by ignorance and gullibility. Such bias will delude others with false information about these beneficial crops.

For most individuals, there is great uncertainty whenever they make decisions that could possibly alter the course of their lives. It is after all understandable, because we all want to make the best decisions for ourselves. This is apparent in the oldest forms of literature, and even in today’s world of media. Robert Frost’s poem, “The Road Not Taken” is an example of how making decisions may alter the path of one’s life. Alternatively, The Disney movie Moana ultimately has the same motif, because she is faced with making a decision that alters her life as well as the life of her fellow villagers. Though the work of Robert Frost and the Disney movie may seem to have little no connection, they are similar in regards that the main character in both stories decided to take the less traveled path, and as Frost said, that has “made all the difference”.

A fork in the road lies ahead of the speaker as he contemplates on which one is the better path. Incapable to see what lies ahead, he opts for the better looking and less worn out one, but soon contradicts himself saying that both ways look equally fair. Thinking about one road, he takes the other telling himself that one-day he will return to try again, although it is very unlikely. The speaker anticipates his future with a sigh, saying that he took the one less traveled by road making all the difference.

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