A Rhetorical Analysis on the Controversy of Genetically Modified Organisms

Introduction

            Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are living organisms in which its original genetic makeup has been artificially altered in a laboratory through genetic engineering in order to obtain a favorable trait (NonGMOProject). This usually involves the manipulation of plants, animals, and bacteria that cannot be achieved through the traditional cross breeding methods (NonGMOProject). Originally, genetic engineering was done for crops to have a resistance against herbicides and develop their own pesticides, however, people have expanded its purpose to other things as well such as eradicating the browning of apples (NonGMOProject). Unfortunately, with a plethora of various perspectives and many people composing their own vastly contrasting ideas on GMOs, it has led to a substantial controversy on whether or not GMOs are damaging to one’s health. Various social media accounts, internet sources, articles, magazines exhibit surprisingly, polarizing information in regards with this topic, however, not only that, the rhetoric they utilize to convey their message is also different. The way one presents themselves and the word choice that they use is also worth analyzing when relating to the current situation of GMOs.

Natural News

One example would be Jennifer Lea Reynolds, who composed, “Monsanto’s GMO corn has no improvement on yields or reduced crop damage, reports claims,” on natural news. Natural News is dedicated to providing their audience with information on science in regards with public health and safety, however, they are also known for providing conspiracies (Media Bias). Reynolds makes her stand clear in going against GMOs by highlighting the faults of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn and pointing out the biotech’s faulty response. Unfortunately, she loses credibility by deploying her opinions into her article. For instance, she claims that Monsanto’s GM corn (MON810) has no impact on crop yields and protection from infections as her introducing statement, but also mentions the words, “What a shocker,” “No surprise here!” (Reynold, 2015). Furthermore, she loses clarity when she added new information about how Monsanto has an issue with other countries that chose to ban GMOs and provided a brief example of the Philippines banning GM eggplants (Reynold, 2015). Then, she continues her assault by stating that Monsanto have “a twisted view of human ethics,” “cleverly craft your words or reply on loopholes” (Reynold, 2015.) This substantially eliminates credibility in her writing, and makes it seem that she is ranting through a stream of conscious than delivering facts as we should expect of a news article.

Non-GMO Project

In contrast to Reynold’s article, an organization called the Non-GMO Project provided a systematic and professional approach in addressing their stand on GMOs. For instance, according to their website, the non-profit organization are North America’s third party verification for foods and products, dedicated to building and protecting a non GMO supply (Non-GMO Project). Some of their missions are that all consumers have the right to know what’s in their food, preserving biodiversity, and returning to old traditional farming methods (Non-GMO Project). Their mission and image themselves are an attempt to connect to consumers that they care for their safety, thus in return they hope consumers might connect with them too. In addition, in order to establish credibility as a reliable source, they employed factual information in regards with GMOs and how they are created without using discriminating words. This completely contrasts with Reynold’s article when she combines both information and her bias towards Monsanto. In addition, they acknowledged that there was an opposing force that there are studies that claim that GMOs pose no harm. Then, to be grounded in their stand, they countered that the studies may be biased due to the fact that the results were obtained by biotech companies themselves (Non GMO project). This was a great way to portray to the audience that they are not blinded to the various perspectives on GMOs and they have a deeper understanding on what’s going on. Furthermore, they build more on their reputation by continue to serve as the public’s tool in verifying GMO products (Non GMO Project). Also, to enhance that, they even release information on how they categorize certain types of food such as corn as being extremely susceptible and known to being genetically modified. Overall, this demonstrates that although their goals are to steer the public away from GMOs, the Non-GMO Project establishes their credibility by keeping an open mind.

The New American

The New American, presents their article, “FDA approves Genetically Engineered Salmon.” Genetically Modified Salmon is the first GMO to be approved by the FDA for consumption, however, there have been people who are against the decision (the New American). The New American, despite being known for having a conservative view (Media Bias), they have presented their information thoroughly particularly for those who care about the environment. To start off, they give the reader a brief overview over the FDA’s new decision, and, cited from the NY Times, described the gene the GM salmon obtained in order to actively grow (the New American). The magazine also mentions an opposing side by stating that the public responded with “public comments with the FDA in opposition to the decision” and mentioned that environmental groups were fearful of what may come (the New American). Similar to the Non-GMO Project, the New American creates their credibility as a reliable source by utilizing an open perspective. Then, they continue drawing out the full picture of the situation by providing a back and forth like conversation between the two sides, AquaBounty, the company responsible for GM Salmon, and the public and companies such as Red Lobster and Costco Wholesale (the New American). As a result, they maintained an unbiased perspective in this article while effectively giving information.

Science and Spirit

From Science and Spirit, they present an academic journal, “‘FrankenFood’ that’s friendly,” discussing two studies that can potentially prove that GMOs aren’t harmful; bringing ease to the public and scientists trying to confirm its safety. To initiate, the author cleverly manipulated the word, “Frankenfood,” a common term to describe GMOs, as to grab the audience’s attention. In a professional tone, the author counters it with hope that this was not the case by a study being done comparing the differences between the GM corn containing the Bt gene and those that do not (Science and Spirit). Then, the author finishes a part of his response that there seems to be no noticeable difference between the two types of corn. This is as expected of a scholarly article that informs the readers effectively. Finally, he presents the second study in regards with preventing cross pollination between GM plants and non-GM plants in the same manner (Science and Spirit); being factual and concludes it there. Instead of choosing a stand directly, as oppose to the non-GMO project or Reynold, they instead presented a perspective that GMOs are harmless and might be beneficial with support of new hope by other ’s research.

Conclusion

With the controversy of GMOs, the various perspectives on their potential impacts set the foundation for different use of language and the way one would present themselves in their writing. Some examples include natural news, the New American, the non-GMO project, and Science and Spirit. At times, we realize that there are a few inconsistencies in one’s work when maintaining their stand, however, it is important to acknowledge these inconsistencies because a variety of people will be deciding what to believe or not based on how one presents their point of view. Furthermore, because of it, it is important to maintain credibility as a source of information, especially when discussing something controversial.

 

 

 

References

MOST TRUSTED SEAL. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2018, from

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

Reynolds, J.L. (n.d.). Monsanto’s GMO corn has no improvements on yields or reduced crop damage, report claims. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from

https://www.naturalnews.com/052360_Monsanto_crop_yields_MON810.html

FDA approves Genetically Engineered Salmon. (2015, December 21). The New American

‘Franken food’ that’s friendly. (2007). Science and Spirit, (18)(4), 9+. Retrieved October 11, 2018

“Natural News.” Media Bias/Fact Check, mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/.

“The New American.” Media Bias/Fact Check, mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/.