Home » Papers
Category Archives: Papers
Reflection on Research Paper on GMOs
Reflection GMOs Research Essay on my Theory of Writing
In order to compose my research essay on GMOs effectively, it was necessary to understand that the majority of the public truly believe GMOs are harmful. However, I was determined to provide credible sources in which I can reveal that there is nothing to be afraid of; at least the impacts of GMOs on human health. It is only the fear generated by misleading sources which led to the huge controversy of GMOs in the first place. In this case, I utilized sources such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, International Journal of Science, and the non-GMO Project. The idea behind using scholarly sources and other distinct sources is to provide the audience a more complete picture of the types of information that is being spread around
through these different sources.
The rhetorical strategies I used to approach my audience is to first provide background information for those who may not know much about GMOs. Then, I transition into discussing my perspective of GMOs, in which there were no harmful impacts on human health. In return, I provide my reasons as to why is the case while supporting those reasons with the sources I have in my arsenal. These reasons include that the fears were simply due to speculation in which it was amplified by many misleading sources, the act of genetic engineering has existed for centuries, and there are actually benefits through the use of GMOs. From my perspective, it was crucial that I provided credible information if I wanted to compose a successful research paper. Everyone loves a credible source that provide information that is reliable. That is what I attempt to give my audience in which I ideally believe is what makes a successful, meaningful research paper.
Reflection on Rhetorical Analysis on GMOs & Theory of Writing
Reflection Theory of Writing with regards with Rhetorical Situation, Audience, and Genre
To my eyes, the theory of writing primarily focuses on two things: The ability to convey emotions and feelings, and the ability to communicate ideas efficiently with one another. With regards with the communication of writing in that part of my personal theory of writing, it involves the context or the rhetorical situation behind a topic, the medium or genre in which the information is shared, and the audience that the information is meant for. Through composing my rhetorical analysis of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), I have learned on my own that the audience, the context of the rhetorical situation, and the genre in which in the author may wish to communicate his/her ideas in simultaneously influence each other. As a result, different pieces of writing are generated as a result of this.
Taking the controversy of GMOs as an example, there is a distinct miscommunication between the public who are fearful of GMOs, and the plethora of scientists who believe that there is no difference between the safety of consuming GMOs and their counterparts. As of right now, there are still a demand for eradicating the presence of GMOs in our food markets and agriculture. This demand was enhanced since the inception of GMOs. Many people were suspicious on the potential detrimental impacts of them on human health and they still do today. This is the audience’s response which can form the rhetorical situation. The rhetorical situation of the fears can influence the genres in which one might communicate their ideas as well. Some of these sources come in the form of news article on websites, or non-profit organizations on various social media platforms such as Instagram. Genres that can be accessible by the general public is what really matters. In addition, the ones that are effective in promoting the fear of GMOs in the public are ideally the ones that can be accessed by the majority of the public. This is evident in some sources that say that bio-agricultural companies such as Monsanto are evil corporations that are there to make artificial creatures that are meant to make profit than ensure their consumers with edible, safe foods. In return, it repeats the cycle again and the audience responds in a way in which the authors of their own published work can adjust. Then, they will compose more reports on GMOs in respect to the feedback they receive and the rhetorical situation that is being at hand. Overall, it is a cycle between the manipulation of genre, rhetorical situation, and the author’s target audience.
I believe it can also be argued that the rhetorical situation of the idea of GMOs transitioned into a huge controversy due to the fact one might present their information through a specific medium or genre to influence the audience into believing that GMOs are truly harmful to our health. As the response from the audience is obtained, the genres in which the author uses to communicate those ideas reuse the same medium to continually share their information. Again, it adds on to the context behind GMOs and its controversy. In conclusion, this what supports my perspective on how it seems that it is a never-ending cycle in which these 3 elements continually play each other. As a result, different pieces of writing along with contrasting point of views is produced.
My Theory of Writing
My Theory of Writing
Enrolling in the English 11000 class, my initial theory of writing was that not only we utilize writing as a form of practical communication with other people, but in reality we use writing for the arts. We use writing as a way to reveal our emotions, thoughts, and feelings when even actions fail to replicate them. Throughout the course, I have use GMOs as the foundation of all the papers I have wrote in this semester. With each piece of writing with regards to the rhetorical analysis of GMOs, a research report on the truth of the safety of GMOs, and the means of communication that will be suited to target an audience that would inform them on the truth of GMOs and their safety, I was able to compose them with ease. I effectively communicated my ideas and research I have found on GMOs, so that the audience understands what I am trying to convey. Unfortunately, I barely had any emotions and feelings in my work, thus, I didn’t feel there was anything memorable to keep in my heart. It did not manipulate my theory of writing when I first came to this class. Instead, it even enhanced what I already believed in.
As writing serves as a communication of information and knowledge, I feel that in theory it is true that writing itself is a mandatory skill that is needed to be in our arsenal for us to survive in our society. However, for many people, I feel that that is not the case. Not everyone is attracted to reading about informative articles about politics, science, or calculus concepts. I feel that writing as an art or a way of expressing our emotions and feelings through another medium other than action is what we truly live our lives for.
For instance, this semester as a freshman, I had no desire to write anything related to academics at all. Whether it be doing calculus problems or studying the Krebs cycle in biology, I didn’t put my heart and soul in it. The purpose of writing was to simply take notes of some of the things that I had to remember for the next exam. Although, it was helpful, there was no emotion behind it. However, recently, there was a girl I have met outside of my biology class, though I have never noticed her once in my other classes. Over time, she became a part of our group. We have studied calculus and biology together. We had fun sharing stories of our past in our high schools, whatever is going on in our neighborhoods, and our experiences. Unfortunately, I slowly initiated to have feelings for her. She was really kind, generous, and her personality was beyond many other people that I have met, but I cannot share these feelings or show it. On top of some of the self-esteem issues I already had and the social awkwardness I sometimes reveal at some points, I feel that if my entire group of friends knows, it might make the relationships that we already have different or awkward. I didn’t have a way to release some of the emotions and thoughts I had. Sometimes experiences like this or a failure in one’s life can be the start of something beautiful. When actions cannot happen, this only leads to other mediums of communication being fully utilized.
Since then, writing in my journal began to improve drastically. On top of the other things I do on my own free time and some of my few memorable experiences, I was able to express the emotions I had on the days where I spend with her and my friends. My writing became more vivid with more descriptive words of imagery. Most importantly, there was more meaning and purpose behind these journal entries. Instead of writing being used for only practical purposes of communication of information, the writing that is being established here is only for your purpose to express your feelings.
My writing theory can be applied outside and inside the classroom as a versatile tool. We write to take down notes and consume immense amounts of information. It is a way of communication that can be utilized in our classes, the work force, and many other areas. However, when we decided to use this skill as an art and place our emotions into it, we produce real, meaningful work. Whether it be a poem, a letter, or even an academic article. As long as we are somehow conveying our feelings in every word that we write down, this is what writing truly means.
Composition in 2 Genres Part 2
Here, I continue my Composition in 2 Genres by providing a storyboard on how I ideally wanted to convey my message to my audience.
The idea behind this is that we want to ease the tension around the idea of GMOs, so one way was to reveal that in a sense that we have been already been consuming GMOs for a long period of time. This is evident when people have been trying to reproduce species with desirable characteristics through cross breeding and cross pollination. Again, not once have we have questioned the harmful impacts of consuming these hybrid species. GMOs established in the lab is not any less different.
To reveal this concept, in this storyboard, we would introduce an image of cross pollination and in response a man seems fine with it. Then, it will transition to genetic engineering in the lab, and in response, the man reacts furiously. At the end, there will be a statement offering a rhetorical question, “What’s the difference?” This commercial is designed to help people question the fears of GMOs that are already out there, so that they might think differently afterwards.
Composition in 2 Genres Part 1
Everyone reads the news, but how do we share information that people will believe and trust? We must establish our credibility by utilizing factual information, providing a complete picture with regards with the topic being discussed, and being honest. This is what is being designed here in this mock news article in which it can also be ideally be replaced with any new source anyone can think of. Overall, the most significant thing to keep in mind is credibility.
A Mock News Article on Conveying the Truth of GMOs with regards with human health
Huffington Post
The Harmful Effects of GMOs have been debunked by Science
By Raymond Wu
Since the inception of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in 1973, it has brought the world an increase in crop yields, profits, and more nutritious foods to help sustain the human population. Unfortunately, due to the large suspicion that GMOs may potentially have a harmful impact on human health such as food allergies, and possible fears of gene transfer from GMOs to the human digestive tract, the public have substantially feared what was in their food. The creation of new species was new and skeptical. This is why there are various organizations such as the non-GMO Project and Organic Consumers Association have provided their resources to fight against GMOs particularly from Monsanto. Furthermore, this why the labels “organic” have been more appealing to consumers. However, throughout the years and even today, a plethora of studies have proven that there is no difference between GMOs and their non-GMO counterparts. In other words, GMOs are just as safe.
Through the use of the Codex Alimentarius Principles, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that genetically modified foods that are currently out on the markets have passed all over their own safety assessments and there were no signs of any harmful effects on human Health. Furthermore, while people are consuming thousands of genetically modified meals throughout the globe without any problem, this only further supports their claims. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences and the WHO confirmed that approximately 90% of the scientific community already believe that GMOs are safe for consumption, while on the contrary, a third of consumers agree with their statement. One might say that there are scientists that have signed that there is no consensus on the GMOs and their safety, however, when the numbers of scientists that believe that there are detrimental effects is being compared to the many thousands of scientists that believe it is otherwise, it doesn’t seem like much. It is clear that there is a disconnect between the consumers and the scientists which can be contributed by the poor communication of information between various sources.
However, this does not mean GMOs are completely beneficial. Potentially, they may pose a threat to environmental health due to the fact that they can be accidentally released into the wild populations of various species, interacting with non-target organisms, the possibility of losing biodiversity, and the increase in use of chemicals when treating crops. As a result, chemical companies may take advantage of this phenomenon and lead to their dominance in the economy. Fortunately, there are many safety assessments going on with regards with this as well.
Sources
https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Brody, J. E. (2018, April 23). Are G.M.O. Foods Safe? Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html
Goldbas, A. (20+). GMOs: What are they? International Journal of Childbirth Education, 29(3), 20+. Retrieved October 16, 2018.
Guterman, L. (2000). Scientists leave the lab to defend bioengineered food. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(32), A29. Retrieved October 16, 2018.
Imhoff, D. (2013, March 1). Food Fight! Trying to Hold Back the Onslaught of Genetically Modified Foods-Or at Least Slap Them with a Label. E Magazine
Lessick, M., Keithley, J., Swanson, B., & Lemon, B. (2002, October 1). Genetically modified foods: A taste of the future. . MedSurg Nursing, 242+.
Research Paper on GMOs
The Controversy of Genetically Modified Foods on Human Health
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are creatures in which their genetic make-up has been altered through genetic engineering or biotechnology in hopes of either obtaining favorable traits, eliminating unfavorable traits, or simply gene manipulation. Genetic engineering can be applied to plants, animals, bacteria, fish, and much more. Since its inception in 1973 (Goldbas), the use of genetic engineering brought us an increase in crop yields, increased our food supply, and enabled us to become more flexible in our resources in respect to climate change. In fact, about approximately 75%-80% of all genetically modified ingredients are present in processed foods (Imhoff). In addition, according to the Environmental Working Group, every American consumes about 193 pounds of genetically modified foods per year (Imhoff). Unfortunately, because the method was utilized for a short period of time and they’re a plethora of contradicting studies on GMOs’ impacts on health, the public have grown suspicious and fearful over the unknown risks that GMOs could have on human health in the future. Furthermore, the rise of large biotechnological companies that are capable of manipulating an enormous amount of our food supply with their own devised organisms fueled the public’s suspicion of what is exactly in their food. Thus, this led to a controversy of GMOs and the creation of two polarizing sides; One perspective depicting that GMOs can provide substantial changes to our lives and the other perspective being that our lives are on the line. In reality, however, most of the controversy of GMOs is derived from fear and speculation of the public and misinformation of various sources; Genetically modified foods are safe for consumption.
One of the main contributors that are fueling the controversy of GMOs on human health are the rhetoric that many sources use in order to frighten and sometimes make the audience perceive something in a specific way. For instance, an article from Natural News aggressively criticizes that Monsanto’s flaws in their own genetically modified corn MON810 that contains the Bt gene (Reynolds). In the article, the author includes words such as Franken-Food Company, and Franken-Food to imply that genetic engineering allows the creation of something hideous as it is equivalent to the creation of Frankenstein (Reynolds). Already, she is attacking the reputation of not only Monsanto, but other biotechnological companies that utilize genetic engineering. In addition, as she is directly attacking one of the largest biotechnological companies, she claimed that Monsanto had a twisted view of human ethics (Reynolds). Overall, the language that is being demonstrated is alarming and can persuade an audience to believe that they are in danger. Acknowledge the emotions that can erupt in response to such words; The power of words can be commanding. Another example would be the non-GMO Project, a popular non-profit organization that are dedicated to promoting a non-GMO food supply, that supports a study on the “GMOs Myths and Truths” created by 3 leading researchers at Earth Open Source (non-GMO Project). Even when the sources are utilizing their rhetoric in a professional fashion when describing their stance on going against GMOs, the words “unnatural” to describe the process of genetic engineering can instill a feeling of uneasiness in their audience. Anything that is not natural has to be something that is off. This may be the reason why the terms “organic” may make a product more appealing to consumers due to the fear of GMOs that are not deemed in that category. As a result, this may have fueled the unnecessary fear of GMOs’ impact on human health.
A second reason to why GMOs are safe for consumption is because the majority of scientists believe that GMOs are safe to eat despite the distinct portion of the public being suspicious over GMOs. According to the New York Times, about approximately 90 percent of scientists believe that GMOs are safe, while on the hand, only a third of all consumers can agree (Brody). Clearly, there is a disconnection between the scientific community and the general public. To support their stand, they utilized logically reasoning; Despite all of the health concerns over potential allergies and toxins in which they have not been fully addressed, there are a plethora of genetic engineering experiments and people consuming many meals without any issues as said by Robert Goldberg in an interview from the Scientific American (Brody). In fact, since the creation of the earliest genetically modified foods, there hasn’t been any detrimental impacts or solidly confirmed evidence of any health risks (Brody). On the contrary, however, one excellent criticism on genetically modified foods is that since the inception of genetic engineering, we may not know the long-term effects of genetically modified organisms even though we already know that nothing has happened so far. This will involve long-term studies on comparing the consumption GMOs products and non-GMO products (Brody). This is why various organizations such as the non-GMO Project and the Organic Consumers Association are dedicated to protecting the people’s health such as providing information on possible detrimental effects of GMOs. In addition, the non-GMO Project is considered America’s third party verification source for GMOs (non-GMO Project). In response, however, it seems absurd and unnecessary to be cautious of the potential long-term effects of GMOs since the basic concept of genetically modifying our organisms have been going on for centuries through the use of cross breeding similar species or cross pollination of similar plants. From an article, “Genetically Modified Foods: A Taste of the Future,” the author describes how we have always had the capability to manipulate the genes of various species in our agriculture for a long period of time (Lessick et. al). The only contrast between genetic engineering and the traditional methods of genetic manipulation such as cross breeding and cross pollination is the manner in which the method is done. Cross breeding or cross pollination consists of mixing of genetic composition in hopes of creating an offspring with a favorable characteristic, but it is only the result of random choice as we cannot control which specific gene we want to cross over (Lessick et. al). Furthermore, this is only possible with species that are closely related (Lessick et. al). On the contrary, genetic engineering eliminates some of the setbacks of traditional breeding. Not only does genetic engineering allows us to transfer desirable genetic traits directly without resorting to the use of trial and errors, but we can expand our possibilities of transferring genes from virtually any organism to a completely different organism. An example of this phenomenon would be inserting a Bt gene from bacteria to enable corn to produce their own insecticide (Reynolds). Not once have we questioned or grew cautious over the possible effects of consuming GMOs that were devised through traditional genetic manipulation. To further support this statement, according to Channapatna S. Prakash, the Director of the Center for Plant Biodiversity, even through the use of traditional breeding such as corn containing one gene that was originally found in soybeans, it wouldn’t even make it any less hazardous (Guterman). He also stated that traditionally hybrid species were never questioned for their safety (Guterman). If even credible scientists find genetic engineering almost as analogous as previous traditional breeding methods, why is it that the public is still fearful of consuming GMOs derived through genetic engineering.
Aside from understanding that there may be no health risks with regards to GMOs as confirmed by many scientists and their various studies, there are proven benefits that counters the fears that comes along with it. For example, according to an article published in the International Journal of Childbirth Education called, “GMOs: What are they?,” Goldbas discusses some of the advances biotechnology has brought to agriculture, resulting in addressing some of the world’s problems such as malnutrition and starvation; “Breakthroughs include food plants which have been altered to be pest resistant and have greater nutritional values.” (Goldbas). One of these plants include the South African white corn that has the potential to be enriched with more protein (Goldbas). Golden rice that is enriched with Vitamin A and are a few other examples that can be enriched with more nutritious content. Furthermore, plants can be genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides, viruses, and withstand extreme environmental conditions (Goldbas). To support the previous statement, he mentions the genetically modified cassava plant, a starchy root that is normally eaten in tropical Africa, can offer its consumers enhanced minerals, vitamin A, and protein as oppose to their genetically modified counterparts (Goldbas). Thus, this can help to reduce weakened immune systems, childhood blindness, and iron deficiency anemia (Goldbas). Furthermore, as stated in the article from Medical Surgical Nursing, some of the benefits are not limited to an elimination of natural allergens found in certain agricultural products, improving the shelf life of food, enhancing taste, and becoming ingredients to help develop edible vaccines and pharmaceuticals (Lessick et. al). As demonstrated, GMOs can provide a new influx of solutions to address any of our problems and make what we already have even better. On the contrary, however, it is stated that there is no proven consensus on the safety of GMO consumption (non-GMO Project). Furthermore, there are studies that have been conducted that suggests that there may be GMOs may need more attention. According to an article from the Environmental Magazine, the author introduces Seralini’s study in which two groups of rats were either given genetically modified corn, their non-GMO counterparts, GMO corn with glyphosate, or glyphosate and water (Imhoff). This was done to replicate Monsanto’s study on their own genetically modified corn. As a result, the rats that consumed Monsanto’s GM corn and exposed to glyphosate caused more premature deaths, the development of tumors in some of the subjects, and increased liver damage, and kidney damage (Imhoff). Therefore, it may be necessary to be alarmed about what GMOs could potentially cause. In response, although the experiment did produce alarming results, there were a few inconsistencies throughout the experiment that may have skewed Seralini’s data. One can say that the sample size is too small for a toxicology study and the species of rats were already susceptible to developing cancers (Genetic Literacy). In addition, some of the rats that were exposed to genetically modified corn even outlived some of the rats that were in the group that weren’t exposed to GMOs (Genetic Literacy). Perhaps, we need to conduct more studies to confirm, but as of present day, the potential benefits of GMOs along with the current observation the people are consuming GMOs without any concrete problem is promising to confirm their safety and worth. Instead, imagine the endless possibilities in our agriculture and resources that GMOs can bring across the globe.
Currently, the controversy of GMOs remains strong today as many people ranging from various backgrounds have different perspectives on the health impacts that they can potentially impose on us. Fortunately, there hasn’t been any concrete evidence or any sign that people who consume GMOs on the daily basis have exhibited any illnesses or allergens in response to them. On the contrary, however, it may be ideal to continue conducting experiments on GMOs since they have only been around since the 1970s and there are recent contradicting studies, such as the Seralini’s experiment replicating the Monsanto’s GMO corn study, that may indicate GMOs may seem dangerous than it seems. Though, what is undeniable is that GMOs provide us with a plethora of benefits that can aid many of the world’s issues and advancements including malnutrition and medicine. Furthermore, along with the promising fact that the entire globe are consuming GMOs without any issue may be the one step forward to end the controversy of GMOs impact on human health.
References
MOST TRUSTED SEAL. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nongmoproject.org/
Brody, J. E. (2018, April 23). Are G.M.O. Foods Safe? Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html
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
Goldbas, A. (20+). GMOs: What are they? International Journal of Childbirth Education, 29(3), 20+. Retrieved October 16, 2018.
Guterman, L. (2000). Scientists leave the lab to defend bioengineered food. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(32), A29. Retrieved October 16, 2018.
Imhoff, D. (2013, March 1). Food Fight! Trying to Hold Back the Onslaught of Genetically Modified Foods-Or at Least Slap Them with a Label. E Magazine
Lessick, M., Keithley, J., Swanson, B., & Lemon, B. (2002, October 1). Genetically modified foods: A taste of the future. . MedSurg Nursing, 242+.
“Gilles-Éric Séralini: Activist Professor and Face of Anti-GMO Industry.” Genetic Literacy Project, geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/gilles-eric-seralini-activist-professor-face-anti-gmo-industry/.
Rhetorical Analysis on GMOs
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
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/.
