I would like to begin my essay by telling the story of the Golden Rice GMO. “Right now, across the world, a quarter of a billion preschool-age children are suffering from vitamin A deficiency. Every year, 250,000 to 500,000 of these kids go blind. Within a year, half of the blinded children will die. Much of the affliction is in Southeast Asia, where people rely on rice for their nutrition. Rice doesn’t have enough beta carotene—the compound that, when digested, produces vitamin A. About twenty-five years ago, a team of scientists set out to solve this problem.
Their plan was to engineer a new kind of rice that would make beta carotene. (Make a GMO that caused rice to produce Vitamin A) This was a sustainable solution. It would use biotechnology to prevent suffering, disability, and death. In 1999 they created the world’s first beta carotene rice by transferring genes from daffodils and bacteria. The yellow grains became known as “Golden Rice. ” (Source) “Anti-GMO groups were confounded. This humanitarian project undermined their usual objections to genetic engineering. In 2001, Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace’s anti-GMO coordinator, appeared at a press conference in France.
Haerlin conceded that Golden Rice served “a good purpose” and posed “a moral challenge to our position. ” Greenpeace couldn’t claim the rice was poison. So it opposed the project on technical grounds: Golden Rice didn’t produce enough beta carotene. The better approach, according to biotechnology critics, was to help people cultivate home gardens full crops rich in Vitamin A. Where that wasn’t feasible or sufficient, Greenpeace recommended supplementation (distributing vitamin A pills) or food fortification, by mixing vitamin A into centrally processed ingredients such as sugar, flour, and margarine.
Anti-GMO groups called Golden Rice a “Trojan horse” for genetic engineering. They doubled down on their double standards. They claimed that people in the afflicted countries wouldn’t eat yellow rice, yet somehow could be taught to grow unfamiliar vegetables. They portrayed Golden Rice as a financial scheme, but then—after it was made clear that it would be given to poor farmers for free—objected that free distribution would lead to genetic contamination of local crops. ” (Source) “Scientists worked to improve the golden rice. By 2003 they had developed plants with eight times as much beta carotene as the original version.
In 2005 they unveiled a line that had 20 times as much beta carotene as the original. GMO critics could no longer dismiss Golden Rice as inadequate. So they reversed course. Now that the rice produced plenty of beta carotene, anti-GMO activists claimed that beta carotene and vitamin A were dangerous. ” (Basically, they said that it produced too much vitamin A) (Source) “Scientists fed Golden Rice to 24 children during clinical trials in China. The trials, conducted in 2008, were designed to measure how much vitamin A the rice could generate in people who suffered from vitamin A deficiency.
One group of kids was given Golden Rice, a second group was given beta carotene capsules, and a third was given spinach. The researchers found that a single serving of Golden Rice, cooked from 50 grams of grains, could supply 60 percent of a child’s recommended daily intake of vitamin A. In a separate study, they found that an adult-sized serving could do the same for adults. Golden Rice was as good as capsules, and better than spinach, at delivering vitamin A. ” (Source) This Project shows just one of the many incredible potential applications of GMOs.
If third world countries planted golden rice, there would be a significantly decreased rate of death in countries afflicted with vitamin A deficiency. Unfortunately, however, golden rice is no longer available due to the actions of Anti-GMO groups. Anti-GMO groups have inadvertently caused the deaths of many due to their actions against golden rice. By continuing to oppose GMOs there can be disastrous consequences. GMOs improve the general quality of life for many people, they decrease the rate of death, and they provide people with what they need, yet we as society are restricting the creation, and use of GMOs.
Why? Why are we as a society doing this? Why are we banning GMOs and requiring them to be labeled? By taking GMOs away from people, we are taking away that which not only helps them, but helps everyone everywhere. When will we stop? “The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fear-mongering, errors, fact manipulation and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer. ” (William Saletan) In the world in which we now live, many people resent GMOs, but do they actually know what a GMO is, or do they just despise them based on gut instinct and popular belief?
I bet that only one in every 10 people who hate GMOs actually know what the acronym means. (Genetically Modified Organisms) “People’s disapproval of GMOs most likely has a lot to do with them not comprehending the scientific understanding that has gone into genetically modifying crops, there is also likely large streak of GMO anti-corporatism. Many people look at GMOs with a sort of view as if to ask: Why should I eat new GMO crops, when I could eat a crop that has been around for millennia?
What they don’t understand, is that there is really no such thing as a crop that scientists just altered. People have been modifying plants since the creation of agriculture twelve thousand years ago. While it may have been done differently back then, the current method of genetically modifying plants is just a more deliberate way of doing what humankind has always done. The only difference now is that people have a scientific understanding of what they are doing and have improved agricultural techniques; advancements in agriculture have moved from the farm to the lab.
The reason that I think so many people are opposed to GMOs, is because they don’t understand what they are, and because they think that scientists are doing something radical in making GMOs; they fear the unknown. ”(Chrisopher Barbey) “The USDA’s catalog of recently engineered plants shows plenty of worthwhile options, yet people still oppose these brilliant plant modifications. The list of potential GMOs includes drought-tolerant corn, virus-resistant plums, non-browning apples, potatoes with fewer natural toxins, and soybeans that produce less saturated fat.
A recent global inventory by the U. N. Food and Agriculture Organization discusses other projects in the future: virus-resistant beans, heat-tolerant sugarcane, salt-tolerant wheat, disease-resistant cassava, high-iron rice, and cotton that requires less nitrogen fertilizer. Skim the news, and you’ll find scientists at work on more ambitious ideas: high calcium carrots, antioxidant tomatoes, nonallergenic nuts, bacteria resistant oranges, water conserving wheat, corn and cassava loaded with extra nutrients and flaxlike plant that produces the healthy oil formerly available only in fish. (source) “That’s what genetic engineering can do for health and for our planet. The reason it hasn’t is that we’ve been stuck in a stupid, wasteful fight over GMOs. On one side is an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science. On the other side are corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing than invest in products that might offend a suspicious public. ” (Source) “The evidence is very clear that GMOs provide a net benefit for humanity. In regards to labeling them, I personally think that labeling confuses people about what is safe and what is not.
I think that if we require GMO labeling, people will think that there is something officially dangerous about them. I hate that, I think that that is the absolute opposite direction that we should be going. I think that if you are an environmentally contentious person you should be going out of your way to eat GMOs, because GMOs are clearly better for the environment. You can make more food for less money, which is better for people. GMOs are better for farmers, GMOs are better for people, GMOs are better for the environment. ” (Chrisopher Barbey) GMO labels do not clarify what’s in your food.
They don’t address the underlying ingredients—pesticides, toxins, proteins—that supposedly make GMOs harmful. They stigmatize food that’s perfectly safe, and they deflect scrutiny from non-GMO products that have the same ingredients. The people who push GMO labels and GMO-free shopping aren’t informing people or protecting people. They are using people. They use people’s anxiety to justify GMO labels, and then they use GMO labels to justify their anxiety. Keeping people scared is the key to their political and business strategy. And companies like Chipotle, with their non-GMO marketing campaigns, are playing along.
The fundamental flaw in the anti-GMO movement is that it only pretends to inform you. When you push past its dogmas and examine the evidence, you realize that the movement’s fixation on genetic engineering has been an enormous mistake. The principles it claims to stand for—environmental protection, public health, community agriculture—are better served by considering the facts of each case than by treating GMOs, categorically, as a proxy for all that’s wrong with the world. That’s the truth, in all its messy complexity. Too bad it won’t fit on a label.
The author gets people’s attention with the use of pathos (emotional appeals), and gets them to believe his point with logos (logical appeals). By doing this, he is able to gain, and keep the audience’s attention as he shows the truth about GMOs. He explains that the war against GMOs is completely pointless by reveling key truths about anti-GMO activists through somewhat humorous stories, additionally, he gives specific examples of GMOs and debunks some key claims about them. He is able to get the information across rather effectively, and he was able to show the truth about some major aspects of GMOs.
In conclusion, GMOs are safe. The evidence is very clear that GMOs provide a net benefit for humanity. In regards to labeling them, I personally think that labeling confuses people about what is safe and what is not. I think that if we require GMO labeling, people will think that there is something officially dangerous about them. I think that if you are an environmentally contentious person you should be going out of your way to eat GMOs, because GMOs are clearly better for the environment. You can make more food for less money, which is better for people.
GMOs are better for farmers, GMOs are better for people, GMOs are better for the environment. There are many incredible applications of GMOs. If GMOs, such as Golden Rice GMO were made, there would be a significantly decreased rate of death in countries afflicted with vitamin A deficiency. Unfortunately, however, we do not have this, or many other good GMOs, due to the actions of Anti-GMO groups. Anti-GMO groups have inadvertently caused the deaths of many due to their actions against golden rice. By continuing to oppose GMOs there can be disastrous consequences.
GMOs improve the general quality of life for many people, they decrease the rate of death, and they provide people with what they need, yet we as society are restricting the creation, and use of GMOs. By taking GMOs away from people, we are taking away that which not only helps them, but helps everyone everywhere. The author gets people’s attention with the use of pathos (emotional appeals), and gets them to believe his point with logos (logical appeals). By doing this, he is able to gain, and keep the audience’s attention as he shows the truth about GMOs.