Eric Zhang Genetically Modified Foods Ms. Frady 2/292016 Annotated Bibliography Working Thesis and Research Question: The questions to be answered this project is whether or not one should support the production of genetically modified foods. Cook, Guy. "Genetically Modified Language: The Discourse of Arguments for GM Crops and Food." Questiaschool. Web. 29 Feb. 2016. "Guy Cook." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 13 Mar. 2016. The author of Genetically Modified Language: The Discourse of Arguments for GM Crops and Food explore GM debate between the prophet of the GM food and the opponent of the GM food, the writer gives a brief summary of each side’s opinion and how the public opinion remains unconvinced and antagonistic, then gives some …show more content…
"GMO Food Pros and Cons." Newsmax. 2015. Web. 29 Feb. 2016. "HootSuite Expands in Asia Pacific with Ken Mandel as Managing Director." Hootsuite Social Media Management. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2016. This article detailed discusses the pros and cons of GM foods, and shows how the pros of GM foods can overcome the cons of GM foods because the benefits that GM foods can provide to the world is so valuable, which makes the disadvantage of GM foods seem negligible. Ken Mandel is the CEO of XM Asia Pacific, which will make this a reliable source. This article will support my thesis as it shows there are much more pros of the GM foods than cons GM foods …show more content…
"Will Frankenfood Save the Planet." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company. Web. 13 Mar. 2016. People should support the production of Genetically Modified food because the benefit it will provide to the agricultural world is so valuable, which will make the disadvantage of it seem negligible. “In ten years or less, most American environmentalists (European ones are more dogmatic) will regard genetic modification as one of their most powerful tools” (Rauch). “Return an acre of farmland to productivity, or double yields on an already productive acre, and, other things being equal, you reduce by an acre the amount of virgin forest or savannah that will be stripped and cultivated. That may be the most important benefit of all” (Rauch). “We can't triple yields again with the technologies we're already using. And we might be lucky to get a fifty percent yield increase if we froze our technology short of biotech” (Rauch). “That the Green Revolution has saved not only many human lives but, by improving the productivity of existing farmland, also millions of acres of tropical forest and other habitat—and so has saved countless animal lives” (Rauch). “If properly developed, disseminated, and used, genetically modified crops might well be the best hope the planet has got”
The Non-GMO talk passionately about the effects GMOs have on human bodies and the environment. They do have valid statements such as, “In the absence of credible independent long-term feeding studies, the safety of GMOs is unknown” (Non-GMO Project). This is completely true. There have been no long-term studies on what GMOs can do to humans which can be a caution people can take when deciding of they want to consume products that have been genetically modified. However, the other of this argument, the people against GMOs, have created such a panic within the rest of the country that many decide to get GMO free products just in case there are negative effects.
In “The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods”, Robin Mather effectively brings awareness to the harmful side effects of genetically modified foods. She shares genetically modified foods are foods with an altered genetic make-up and therefore, is banned in several countries. Also, the pesticides used in genetically modified foods yield harmful side effects to animals and humans. On top of health hazards, the process of labeling these foods are not as costly as the Federal Drug Administration declares. Furthermore, she discredits the FDA’s credibility by revealing the bovine growth hormone (produced in cow’s pituitary glands and is a genetic modification) raises the risk of cancer; although, the FDA approves it.
Genetically modified foods have been receiving a lot of unjustified hate from the media recently. This is unjustified because GM foods are superior for three main reasons; They produce far more food than un-altered crops, the negative environmental impact is decreased, and the overall quality of GM foods is increased. This should be far more than enough to debunk the myths of GM foods being bad. The consumer, being anyone from an industrial farmer to a small family, can rest assured buying, eating or growing
Nevertheless, I hold a opposite view, I think GM food is worsening our world rather than improving it. GM food has negative effects on both nature and human while producing and using. Negative Effects on Nature Reduce biodiversity Although through genetic modification, food can contain various kinds of nutrition we need, but in long-term, GM food can threaten the biodiversity of our planet. GM food is
In the article, “The Green Monster: Could Frankenfoods Be Good for the Environment?”, by James E. McWilliams, GMO’s are thoroughly discussed and examined in recent history and current events. This paper will discuss the author, his past and present, his credentials, and otherwise relevant information, as well as the GMOs themselves and the flurry of activity surrounding their controversial existence. James E. McWilliams, an author and professor of history at Texas State University, hails from San Marcos, which is thought to be one of the longest inhabited lands in the Americas, as well as a foundry for culture and history, which might explain his choice of study when he pursued higher education. After attending Georgetown, where he majored
GMOs are considered to be the next agricultural “innovation” as some would say, but this is incorrect. They think that GMOs are a way to feed everyone on earth. Giving them the nutrients that they need to grow in conditions that most plants can’t live in, while not causing harm to physical and environmental health. They are wrong. GMOs do more harm than good.
For years, the health and safety of genetically modified foods have been debated and researched by scientists, but the question still stands: should genetically modified foods be allowed for consumption? The process of genetic modification involves inserting a gene from bacteria or a virus into an organism where it would normally not be found. The purpose is to alter the genetic code in plants and animals to make them more productive or resistant to pests or farming techniques. Genetically modified organisms, more commonly known as GMOs, have been a controversial topic of debate for a number of reasons. The ethics behind genetically modified foods come into question due to an abundance of short and long-term effects from the process, many of which are still unknown today.
In Oryx and Crake, Margaret Atwood addresses the concerns about the potential risks of implementing genetically modified organisms. She warns that dependence on such organisms could lead to unforeseen consequences on society. With the improvement of technology and rapid growth of genetic advancements, scientists are able to create genetically enhanced animals. Scientists started off with relatively small-scale genetic modifications, however, when corporations saw the success and potential revenue generating ability, the genographers were provided with funding and the experiments became a business.
Both essays share common themes, in mainly advocating for sustainability in the food and agriculture industry. However, the authors suggest different methods to obtain this. Can GMOs Be Sustainable, written by McKay Jenkins mainly discusses the usage of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the agriculture industry, and the controversy that surrounds them. The article is mainly through the point of view of farmer Jenny Schmidt, who discusses the positive effects of GMOs, and how they can help farmers. However, there are also perspectives given by different professionals, which all support the conversation of sustainability in the food industry.
Most genetic engineering is designed to meet the corporates rather than the consumer’s needs. However, more and more people are growing to believe that GMO products are being produced to be ‘counterfeit freshness’ and some believe that there is no real issue. But are people just being blinded by the science? In its place of providing individuals with beneficial information, obligatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so called Franken foods endangers people’s health. Most major European retailers had to remove GM products from their shelves because they were worried that this kind of technology would drive people away.
Tests have proven the genetic modifications as destructive towards the human body. “The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed.” This was all after 1996 introduced GMOs. The article also states, “... in the nine years following the introduction of GMOs in 1996 food allergies, disorders such as autism, and chronic illnesses increased sharply.” This change in genetics is creating many problems in the United States.
However, nowadays, further studies and inventions created GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms), “where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal” (“Seeds of Deception”). Kara Posso, an environmental science junior, expressively identified some of the benefits of GMO by claiming that “GMO foods, if put to use, could turn out to be more sustainable by allowing us to feed a lot of people. It would also mean using fewer pesticides, which are damaging to water resources” (“Nobel Laureate Praises Benefits of GMOs - The Daily Texan”). The effects of GMO will be
Sixty-one other countries enforce consumer "right to know" laws for GM foods (Burghaard). In the United States, it is expected for foods to have a label that says what is in it. Consumers expect for labels to say if artificial flavors or colors, vitamins, peanuts, or other ingredients have been added. Consumer’s attitude towards GM foods is conditioned by the risk that they perceive from introducing food that is processed through technology that they hardly understand (Bawa & Anilakumar).
In the 1980’s, the first genetically modified tobacco and tomato crops were introduced and sold in China and have been, controversially, around ever since. Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, according to the World Health Organization, are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material has been modified through genetic engineering. Since the first time genetically modified foods were introduced in the 1980's, there has been a debate on whether or not these alien foods are harmful to our health. According to Jeffrey Smith, author of the book Seeds of Deception, in Another Reason for Schools to Ban Genetically Engineered Foods, he states, “Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes” (486). Clearly, the uncertainty for
GMOS Introduction: I believe that GMOS are good for this world and for the people because the gmos can save us from starving when all the food is gone. GMOS are a genetically modified organism is an organism whose genetic materials that have been altered using genetic engineering techniques. GMO foods are okay to eat because some food that have gmos could have some genetic characteristics in them to make the food survive the hot when that food has to be frozen. GMOS are different from foods that don 't have GMOS Body 1: GMOS can save the world because if we had no food because if there was a drought and the plants died. Then we could just plant GMO foods, The drought won’t really do anything to the plant.