David H. Freedman uses statistics and emotion to help the readers connect more with what he is saying in his article. In the Article, he talks about the pros and cons of Genetically modified foods, how they are tested and if they can cause any real risks to the people. “Are Engineered Foods Evil?” appeared on September 2013 in the issue of Scientific American entitled “The Food Issue: The Science of Feast, Fuel, and Farm.” He also has written in Inc. Magazine, the Harvard Business Review, Wired and even in the New York Times. Freedman utilities a solid base of benefits and worries, a clean record and a way forward to educate the common people or other researchers on the effects of Genetically Modified Foods. Freedman points out that there …show more content…
Freedman plays on emotion in the Benefits and Worries section and really starts out the whole article with that because it is an uncertain subject and he’s going to do anything he can to grasp the audience. He writes that the benefits of GM foods are greatly higher than the risks and that for the most part, GM foods help lower prices on foods and farmers are now able to use fewer pesticides. Zilberman says “the world will have to grow 70 percent more food by 2050 just to keep up with population growth.” p. 632 Freedman is playing to the audience and making them realize that food is an important aspect and we need it to survive and GM foods could help the process go faster. GM foods can withstand more harsh conditions than regular food could or can. Even so with all the evidence of good and how it can help us most of the world has banned GM foods. They refuse to use them even though there are people starving in their country and even though they would save so much more money. Page 632 says that there are only 4 countries that use GM foods and that is the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. Many people have …show more content…
On page 633 it says that the human race has long been selectively breeding crops and that today 's wheat could not exist outside of farms due to their seeds not being able to scatter. Also, wheat, rice, peanuts, and pears have been created using mutagenic techniques and there are to this day no known health risks from these foods. Selective breeding usually involves lots of genes being swapped while GM scientists are able to insert single genes allowing there to be less room for error or anything unknown they weren’t expecting. Scientist Goldberg stated “We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it. We can show exactly which changes occur and which don’t.” p. 633 They add virus DNA to plants which to some would be a turn-off but it’s actually very common and people, as well as all other organisms, have viruses injected into their bodies and it usually does no harm. Yet the question on page 634 saying “could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own?” has been a concern but scientists clear up that they have never found a genetic material that could manage its way through the human stomach and reach the cells. Also, the everyday person encounters so many other viruses and bacterias that they have become immune to many so the genes in GM foods most
Food is an essential part of everyday life without it one could not survive. Every day we make choices on what we put in to our bodies. There are countless varieties of food to choose from to meet the diverse tastes of the increasing population. Almost all food requires a label explaining the ingredients and the nutritional value allowing consumers to make informed decisions on what they are consuming. However, many may not be considering where that food is coming from or how it has been produced. Unfortunately, there is more to food than meets the eye. Since 1992, “ the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled, based on woefully limited data, that genetically modified foods were ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GM counterparts” (Why to Support Labeling). GM food advocates have promised to create more nutritious food that will be able to grow in harsh climate conditions and eventually put an end to world hunger in anticipation of the growing population. There is very little evidence to support these claims and study after study has proven just the opposite. GM crops are not only unsafe to consume, but their growing practices are harmful to the environment, and multinational corporations are putting farmers out of business.
In deciding whether to invest in Deltex, we have to consider some advantages and disadvantages of this deal first.
According to an article titled “Genetically Modified Foods Eaten” regularly by Linda A. Johnson today, essentially 40% of the foods we eat are genetically modified, unless you eat organic foods and/or you grow your own. Most products containing corn, soil, canola oil, or cottonseed oil contain genetic modification. One of the biggest genetic modification company is Monsanto (Johnson). She goes on to say many Americans don’t even know they are consuming genetically engineered foods. In “Genetically Modified Foods Confuse Consumers” by Mary Clare Jalonick writing in the Washington Times, has talked about how this is because the FDA does not require them to be labeled. Jalonick has said, “Genetically modified foods are plants or animals that have
Experts say, “Unless you consume only certified organic foods […] you’ve almost certainly eaten foods containing ingredients whose genes have been tweaked […].” (Anonymous, 2013, p.4). This assertion proves that people is eating food with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s), nevertheless they disown the consequences of its intake. The opinions in the scientific society are divided, however recent experiments let predict the possible effects that GM Food production and consumption generates in a global scale. Genetically Modified Foods should be banned because it generates a negative impact on humans’ health, affects the environment and harms the third world nations.
If you read the paper or watch the news, you’re undoubtedly aware of the debate raging over genetically modified food. Is it bad or is it good? Between the feuding sides, you might find yourself a little lost and wondering which side is right. Answers to seemingly simple questions have been blurred or exaggerated by both sides. On one side genetically modified food is more sustainable, safe, cheaper, easier to grow and has the potential of creating disease-fighting foods. Although this is positive and good intentioned, there may be unintended consequences that we have been quick to overlook. Those opposing genetically modified food clam that it is dangerous, harms the environment, increases health risks, and causes infertility and weight gain. Even things like the declining bee population may have closer ties to modified food than previously thought. We must look to science for answers. By studying genetically modified organisms (GMOs) we can guide our decision about whether we want to be consuming them.
How many of you hear the words “genetically modified food” and immediately think “BAD”? How many of you scorn the idea that genetically modified foods are useful? How many of you have been manipulated by the media to think that all biotechnology is evil? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been genetically spliced to achieve a certain trait. As the demand for a larger food supply is increasing due to population growth, the benefits that GMO foods provide are being hailed as the only solution to the food crisis. However, many people are making inadequately informed decisions, and are pushing them to the back shelf. I will inform you on why genetically modified organisms may be the only way to a stable, safe future for the less fortunate.
To sum up, we could cut down on how much food has GM. We should make more food with no GMOs so we can all be healthy. We could also make more jobs for farming. This is the reason I do not like GMOs. I hope you enjoyed reading this article.
First, I would like to clarify my point of view on the statement made by Mr. Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, from “Scar Food,” policy Review (June/July 2006). The statement by Mr. Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko of the Hoover Institution argue that genetically modified (GM) crops are safer for the consumer and better for the environment than non- GM crops. And also they discusses about topics such as Americans take food safety very seriously, Do not trust Mother Nature and also about property damage and personal Injury from the naturally produced foods. In addition to this Mr. Henry & Mr. Gregory is trying to say that genetically produced food are much safer than naturally produced food. As I went through this article I understood that it is about the advantages of introducing genetically modified foods are safer to consume than naturally produced food. So this part of the argument can be considered as the opinion of a one side of a coin.
The growing controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have left many Americans and people all around the world with various questions and concerns as to what they are really putting into their bodies. The issue at hand is one that, although is very dominant in the world today, many are still uneducated on the problem and have not been informed with the facts. GMOs have been placed in the world without much question or second thought and it is time that America hear what should have been told many years ago. Although over ninety percent of the food eaten everyday has been genetically modified in the United States, many today believe the food they eat everyday is perfectly healthy, safe, and beneficiary for them. On the contrary, however, others will argue that the food has become poisoned, unsanitary, and detrimental to the health of themselves and others due to the ongoing issue of genetically engineered foods. As food production grows, and more suspicions rise to the surface, many people are left with the begging question, “Are GMOs really bad for us?” Everyone one is entitled to his or her own opinion and there are many out there who would like to believe one side or another. Regardless of who believes what, after the research is conducted, in hopes of accumulating a better understanding of the issue, it will be known what genetically modified organisms really are, where genetically mutated crops originate from and whether genetically modifying crops are harming or benefiting the world.
advantages and disadvantages to every man. Seems as though Gross is in favor of the
Considering an argument as valid requires critical analysis of several aspects and providing strong evidence. Robin Mather, a journalist who “has passion for food and its sources, has worked at major metropolitan newspapers (the Detroit News, the Chicago Tribune)”(86), argues that GMOs have risks and hazards to human health and threats to wildlife and environment in her article “The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods”, whereas Entine, a colleague at the Genetic Literacy Project, and Wendel, a science writer(82), claim that GMOs are safe to eat and no harm to people or animals in their article “2000+Reasons Why GMOs are Safe to Eat and Environmentally Sustainable” Both articles’ authors state their ideas clearly for whether GMOs could be eaten or not. However, Mather provides more solid
...ence of GM crops is that genetic modifications can develop proteins in plants which a consumer could be allergic to. For example, one of the most common allergies is with the peanut. What would happen if peanut proteins interlace into tomato seeds? Then people with peanut allergies would not be able to eat genetically modified tomatoes. There are many reasons to stop the production of GM food. It can produce serious long-term nature accidents, but there is no way to know much about it until is too late (“GM Food” 2).
As human technological innovation proceeds into the twenty-first century, society is faced with many complex issues. Genetic engineering and cloning, encryption and information security, and advanced weapons technologies are all prominent examples of technological issues that have substantial moral and ethical implications. Genetic engineering in particular is currently a very volatile subject. One important aspect of this field is GMO or Genetically Modified Organisms, which has far-reaching potential to revolutionize modern agriculture. GMO crops are already being developed by many leading biotech companies, and have come under intense scrutiny by society. This is easily understood, however, because there is not much that is more important than how people get fed. Specifically, where their food comes from, and how it is produced. Thus, it is essential that we examine the ethical dilemmas as well as the practical benefits posed by such a powerful technology.
The right of corporates to patent Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) represents one of the most provocative issues related to genetically modified food. A patent refers to the legal right that gives ownership of an invention to the person/organization that created it. Only the owner of the patent has the exclusive right to produce that invention. Other people/organizations cannot produce it without the patent owner's permission. A license fee must be paid in order to get such a permission (Freedman, 2009).
Preview of main points: Today, I will discuss the pros and cons and the history