Abstract: In this essay I will be evaluating if genetically Modified foods are safe for consumption. Using 6 different authors nd rhetorical analysis I also seek to prove that faulty resources can say ones options on the topic. This is meant to serve as a logical argument among the masses, the goal for this paper is to match the intended audience; the everyday consumer.
Everyone eats– and within recent years consumers are starting to care more about what goes into their bodies. Food is essential for the body and everyone needs to have it but the imbalance of supply and demand has created food insecurity within large communities. Food is going under constant changes in order to establish equilibrium between consumers and crop raising.
One popular solution has been using genetically modified foods. Food that is genetically altered is derived from genetically modified organisms such as plants, animals, microorganisms and other organisms whose genetic makeup has been modified in a laboratory using genetic engineering to make it resistant to change. Genetically modified foods have become one of the top methods to preserve food against pests, diseases and other environmental conditions. Despite the many benefits that modified food has over naturally grown food some believe genetically modified food can cause genetic mutation that impose on crops. On the other hand, others believe the engineered food can permanently change desolate areas where vegetation could not previously grow.
After hearing disputes in support of and against genetically modified foods many people have formed misconceptions and are unsure on which side to support. This topic has been argued on several platforms ranging from websites, magazines, newspapers, and even from reputable sources. Although genetically modified foods have been used in various products, new methods to accelerate food growth have raised questions from concerned consumers. In this essay, I will dive into reputable and non reputable sources and exploit the many misconceptions surrounding genetic modification through the use of rhetorical analysis.
It has been said that food may be essential as fuel for the body, but good food is fuel for the soul. But what exactly is “good” food, is it the good healthy vegetables like broccoli, peas and carrots or is it the good tasty food like ice cream, cookies, and cakes? And does genetically modified food make the cut in this category of “good” food? In order to answer this question I scoured the internet, one author captured my interests. Jennifer Ackerman, renowned writer, employs National Geographic to share her article Food: How altered? In which she claims that genetic food is good food thus safe for consumption.
Ackerman defends her claim by stating the statistics of already genetically modified food whilst incorporating the research from other scientists. Her article serves to inform the everyday audience about genetically modified food inorder to disarm the raging consumers. Ackerman gives a factual statement with a semi formal tone to assist the general public with the knowledge of genetically modified food. One way writers sway the public’s interpretations of genetically modified foods is through adjectives and their connotations. Ackerman uses vocabulary like, “envisions, engineered, and spawned” to familiarize the audience with common vocabulary so she can better explain difficult concepts about the GMO industry. This ensures her message comes across clear and precise. The audience can then allude that Ackerman is aware that not everyone is educated on the new developments in food science and terms and thus uses this vocabulary so all audiences can understand Ackerman’s message. Ackerman’s communication with the audience relied on using simple words so that anyone can understand despite their age or familiarity with the topic
Along with her use of simple vocabulary it gives the reader the idea that genetically modified foods are creating something new that can shake up the agriculture world for the better. Which heavily contracts with blogger Deniza Gertsberg. Who uses the website The Non-GMO Project to share her article “6 Reasons to Avoid GMOs.” which ridicules the existence of genetically modified organisms in our food claiming that the ingestion is unnatural and insidious. Gertsberg supports her opinion by utilizing, now retracted, statistics from non reputable research. Her purpose is to make the readers aware of what they are putting in their bodies in order to have any potential support for genetically modified food diminished. In her post she rages that it was “disturbing we are forced to write ”wholesome” messages about the alleged benefits of GM.” The words “disturbingly” and “alleged” were meant to convey an unsettling feeling in the audience. Clearly, Gertsberg does not agree with how the public were told that GMO foods were let into the market until after it had been circulated into the stores years before. Although her vision is to advise and inform the people about genetically modified food, her form of media as well as the words she employs makes it seem like the article is more of a persuasive piece rather than an informative article. From the title alone, 6 Reasons to Avoid GMOs, one can observe that Gertsberg is going to constantly refute genetically modified food and brings up her belief on why it should not be used.
Gertsberg has an informal and somewhat critical tone when addressing the audience which gives off an impression of a rant more than a scientific explanation. She argues that “GMOs may also have the potential to further lower the effectiveness of antibiotics in the population. Superbugs anyone?”: Gertsberg highlights the potential negative effects of GMOs and uses a sarcastic tone to mention that like pests genetically modified food can also gain resistance to antibiotics. Which further supports the idea that Gertsberg’s purpose is to persuade readers not to inform. In contrast to Ackerman whose tone is written formally but while also using casual words to be easy to follow. For example, “The aim was to create a more nutritious soybean for use in animal feed.” After reading this sentence one could easily see Ackerman is saying scientists wanted to create better soybeans for animal feeders. Her stance remains to be neutral because she does not state which side she belongs on but her information and resources highlight the positives of the recent developments in genetically modified foods. All in all, based on Getsbergs tone and purpose it becomes clear that her stance is to spread misinformation when informing others about GMOs.
Xin Chen graduate from the College of Veterinary Medicine, located at the Northwest A&F University, utilizes the website Journals Review to share his article “Effects of Genetically Modified Milk Containing Human Beta-Defensin-3 on Gastrointestinal Health of Mice.” Chen argues whether the effects of genetically modified milk can affect the digestion system of mice. His believed abstraction is founded upon his research in the article in which he describes the absorption tract of mice through the use of charts and graphs. Chen’s main purpose for publishing this piece is to have readers armed with evidence in order to make their own inquiry on genetically modified food. Although Chen’s purpose is to spread information on the effects of genetically modified milks his audience is not intended for the everyday Joe, it is for other researchers and curious consumers such as myself who already have someone with an understanding of the tests and language. Clearly, Chen’s audience mostly consists of distinguished scientists interested in genetically modified food as is evident through his incorporation of a tricine SDS page and electrophoretogram; he addresses the reader with a tone that is formal and factual.
For the most part of his research Chen employs a formal tone when addressing his audience. When opening up with his abstract there is not a friendly greeting or a call for attention like in Getsberg’s piece but simply a bland statement of what the research is observing. Chen begins by stating, “The research was meant to test the effects of GM milk on mice for a 90 day peroid.” while Getsberg opens by stating,“Disturbingly, while we are force-fed “wholesome” messages about the alleged benefits of GM foods.” When Comparing the tones of Chen and Getsberg, Getsberg possesses her disapproval of GM foods to the audience while Chen neither confounds or contradicts the usage of GM foods in his initial statements. Since Chen does not provide a bias statement in his abstract it can make it difficult to determine his stance but throughout his research he shows graphs and tables that illustrate the positive relationship between mice and GM milk. Chen even states that,“There is no evidence that the GM animals or products have harmful effects on human or animal health.” Chen does not state explicitly his belief but based on his conclusion his stance proves to favor GM Foods.
There is a section in his study where he provides a simulation of how a human stomach would react if it were to try to process the proteins inside the genetically modified milk. He uses an electrophoresis which is a type of graph to illustrate this idea. The milk contained proteins and the proteins were labeled as human beta-defensin 3 or hbd3 for short. Pepsin is the acidic fluid found in our stomachs and helps break down the proteins found in our food. The marker was used to indicate the genes inside the hbd3 strands that would soon be broken down and digested by pepsin. At 0 mins there is a prominent black line in section B which shows that the proteins inside the milk were not able to be broken down by the pepsin but at 1 min and so on there is no black line which means that the proteins inside the milk can be broken down by the pepsin. Overall, this test shows that our stomachs are able to digest genetically modified foods without a single threat or problem.
Problem solved, right? Well not in its entirety, people are able to eat genetically modified food but there are still some worries about its impact on other wildlife. One doubt that was expressed in Gertsber’s blog is the possible creation of superbugs. Superbug is a term used to describe a special type of bacteria that has been groomed to be immune to insect-resistant crops. The great fear of superbugs is logical since it can cause pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and skin infections. However, corporations such as Monsanto have seen the concerns and strived to avoid the spread of superbugs. Monsanto created crops using bt, bacillus thuringiensis, proteins. The bt proteins are inserted into crops the proteins will only fight specific pests such as the European corn borer and rootworm (Gaskell). Companies working in the genetically modified food business have set numerous rules and regulations in order to evade the expansion of supper bugs. It is clear that many “health experts” cautioned against the engineered foods without even truly understanding its limits.
Nevertheless, genetically modified foods have made meaningful impacts. According to Francis Dizon genetically modified corn is one of the most grown products. Scientists have modified corn in order to feed it to livestock and now corn can grow larger in a shorter period. Potato plants have been produced and tested successfully and deliver a pharmaceutical immunization against cholera. While strawberries and tomatoes are injected with fish genes to protect the fruit from freezing. Tomatoes last longer, so that they can tolerate longer periods of transportation. Dizon goes into detail about all the genetic foods that have been created as well as their components.
Shahzad Kouser elaborates how these genetically engineered foods have helped the people through the inserted genes. Kouser mentions that since tomatoes are resistant to freezing temperatures they are able to withstand freezing weather so people in colder climates can grow tomatoes in their countries rather than import them. Genetically modified foods are also able to grow in areas with poor soil and they’re also able to withstand droughts and floods. By having the ability to plant food in places that previously could not support crops, farmers are able to provide more food. Places like Africa, which have poor and dry soil, are able to sustain and produce more crops which in turn, help hunger in poverty-stricken areas. Kouser states that food security for homes with less food have seen a dramatic increase within the years. Households in India have been able to accomplish their overcoming in food. An example of this is the GM crop used by farmers in developing countries. Half of the global GM crop area is located in developing countries, but much of it is in farms.
All in all, genetically modified foods have an array of benefits in the agriculture world. Their employment in the field can help many people in poverty stricken areas as well as those who farm the food. However, with the food being relatively new there can be unseen dangers with genetically altering our food but as far as we know genetically modified foods are safe for consumption.
WORKS CITED
Ackerman, Jennifer. “Altered Food, GMOs, Genetically Modified Food – National Geographic.”
Altered Food, GMOs, Genetically Modified Food – National Geographic, 28 Sept. 2016,
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/food-how-altered/.
Brody, Jane E. “Are G.M.O. Foods Safe?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Apr.
2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html.
Chen, Xin Gao, and Yong Gao Zhang “Effects of Genetically Modified Milk Containing Human
Beta-Defensin-3 on Gastrointestinal Health of Mice.” Yange Gao Yang.
Ming-Qing Gao Zhaopeng Shi, PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, 20
July 2016, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159700
Dizon, Francis, et al. “Genetically Modified (GM) Foods and Ethical Eating.” Wiley Online
Library, 28 Dec. 2015,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-3841.13191.
Gaskell, George, “GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception.” Wiley Online
Library, 18 Feb. 2004, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x.
Gertsberg, Deniza. “6 Reasons To Avoid GMOs” The Non-GMO Project, 29 Sept. 2010,
https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/6-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/.
Kouser, Shahzad. “Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security.” PLOS ONE, Public Library
of Science, 5 June 2013,
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064879.
