Essay #2 -Stasis Revision Plan
Revision Plan: For the revision plan, I will be implementing the recommendations that my peers have suggested. Which is to add sources that discuss the names on the major companies that are funding the research for Genetically modified foods. The companies that are funding the research are also bias and focusing on the stating that the results are positive and do not cause harm. Another thing I will be focusing on is implementing stronger opposing views to my argument because there are strong arguments to be made by counter arguing the opposing side. One of the peers mentioned that My essay is bias and that I need to answer the following questions; people need to eat to survive. We have limitless land for farming so we need genetic food solution to reduce the farming period and get more products. Do you think humanity can grow enough food in future with traditional method? Do you consider how many people in the world right now and how to feed them if people keep increase rapidly in the next 10 years, 20 years and more? Everybody always wants to eat healthy. If they have a choice to eat healthy, they will pick that choice. Many people have no time to grow their own veggie in their little garden. Why is it wrong to find the solution for potential problem in the future?
Genetically modified foods are bad for one’s health because there is not enough research out there to guarantee that consuming such foods will not cause long term heath defects and the risk of the unknown outweighs the benefits. Genetically modified foods are grown with an alteration to their DNA. The scientists cut out the unwanted genes and replace it with a desirable gene sequence from another organism. This type of gene alteration can be done to the cells of plants, animals, bacterium and viruses. Genetically modified foods are grown to be bigger, last longer and withstand natural sources like pests from destroying it. Genetically modified foods have benefits, like grown to be bigger and last longer, but they are not naturally grown and because gene splicing is taking place the natural nutrients may not be there or the organism may have adverse side effect because it was not grown naturally. Should the production of genetically modified foods be halted until more research is conducted to a definitive conclusion that eating food that are genetically modified causes no harm to human body or the environment. Genetically modified foods can be beneficial to developing countries or malnourished people, but over time if the chemicals and genetically alterations of the GMO foods id not digestible then it will affect their health in the long run.
The world’s population increases each day and that calls for an increased demand to produce food items. To keep up with the increase demand large corporations have begun producing foods using genetic modification. The unwanted gene sequence within the DNA of one organism is replaced with a desirable gene sequence from another, altering the organism to produce desirable results. Such results as staying fresher longer or being bigger in size as a larger quantity. Such a method for growing food items is not something that I would tolerate because these foods are not grown naturally and may lack the nutrient valley or have adverse side effects over time. Genetically modified foods can be beneficial to developing countries or malnourished people, but over time if the chemicals and genetically alterations of the GMO foods id not digestible then it will affect their health in the long run.
A group dynamic can argue that genetically modified foods are not grown natural. The molecular structure of an organism is altered “using natural enzymes to cut a gene — or fragment of DNA — from one organism and insert it into another organism either indirectly via vector, such as a virus, or directly via a gene gun or microinjection technique, for example. Generally, the introduced gene confers a new trait to the organism.” (Lajeunesse, Sara. Penn State Ag Science Magazine.) The group dynamic would be the numerous people who are concerned about living and sustaining a healthy life style. Individuals are going out of their way to consume foods that are organically grown, choosing to eat natural rather than foods packed with dyes and preservatives and consuming less yeast and gluten. A major trend that is present now are different types of diets such as juicing cleanse, eating locally and organically grown foods and the emergence of many vegan choices of food items and vegan restaurants. All this goes to show that the public is concerned with its health and the foods that are consumed. With that in mind that I strongly believe that genetically modified foods are not healthy, are not grown organically and may even cause health issues soon.
One of the main concern that I have with genetically modified foods is that they are grown to have a longer lasting shelf life. To do so, they corporations are funding scientists to alter the DNA of foods to make it last longer. With that in mind, once the food is consumed, that is supposed to have a longer shelf life, how long does it take for the food to be completely digested. The chemicals or additives used to make the food last longer may last longer in the digestive track or organelles of the individual that ate the genetically modified food and ultimately cause health complications. Since the food is not grown organically, it may lack the necessary nutrients, fibers and vitamins that an organically grown food, would have had. Which in turn will not provide the full benefit to an individual’s health. Such a risk without definitive research is not helping anyone except the large corporations who want to continue growing GMO foods simply to increase their profits.
Upon doing some research I came across a couple of reputable sources that mentioned that they benefit of genetically modified foods and the drawbacks of it. Being that I am arguing for the side with limits or even halts all production of genetically modified foods, I will start out by presenting a strong opposing view to my own. An agricultural and environmental economist from UC Berkeley, David Zilberman, is mentioned in the article ‘The truth about Genetically Modified Food’ to advocate the production of genetically modified foods because it keeps the prices low for the consumers. He presents the information that the projected increase of population growth, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that the world will have to grow 70 percent more food by 2050. (Freedman David H., ScientificAmerican.com). Population growth and the necessity for increased food production is an important matter and a possible solution to the increased demand if to increase research on and implementation for increased production of foods naturally. A possible solution is of increased education, teaches everyone across all age groups to grow their own foods, to be more environmentally conscious and waste less food items and providing healthier alternatives. One argument that will help support my point of view is one by made by Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who last year publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology; he declares that there are no verified cases of genetically modified foods causing harm, and then elaborating on that by stating that natural is healthier but we do not need to wait for an epidemic to conclude that such crops are bad for the health. (Freedman David H., ScientificAmerican.com). Mark Lynas advocates that there are no verified cases of genetically modified foods causing harm. The key word here is ‘verified.’ This stipulates that harm to one’s health was present at some point in time, after consuming the genetically modified foods. This leads me to believe that the research is not conclusive, harm is not present, but a surety of benefits to health is not present either. I would not condone eating genetically modified foods because even a one percent possibility of causing harm to one’s health is one too many for me.
Genetically modified foods can be seen as an answer to the feeding the projected increase in population in the coming years or providing viable food for the malnourished societies of the globe, but it is a concept that does not show definitive results of providing nourishment without causing harm to the public’s health. One of the major agricultural company that funds a majority of the research focused on genetically modified foods, is Monsanto, an agricultural chemical company. Simply googling the name Monsanto brought up many negative results for the company. One was titled, Five Things Monsanto Doesn’t Want You to Know About GMOs: The facts about GMOs are nothing like what the biotech industry would like you to think. The article was Published on Food & Water Watch (https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org). It completely follows my exact view point about the negatives of genetically modified foods and how they do not live up to the hype and the research is bias because, “the real purpose of GMOs is power and control over the food supply, and ultimately it’s about profits.” Food & Water Watch (https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org). Clearly this Monsanto company has had some negative impact on the media and the scientific agricultural community because upon reading the article the presented tone is that GM foods are not beneficial and the corporation is masking the negative simple to boost profit margins. Risking the heath of the public to implement an agricultural tactic that has not been well researched and it simply means more chemicals are use and ingested. The production of genetically modified foods should halt immediately until more concise research is conducted, which shows results of it being a healthier alternative to organically grown foods.