The article that I read, Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show, talks about major companies, such as Chipotle, Cheerios, and Stonyfield Farm, who are taking different sides to genetically modified technologies based on the opinions of their consumers. After some emails from a company called Monsanto, one of the largest seed companies in the world, were released to the public, there has been a heated debate about whether or not G.M.O. (genetically modified organisms) are safe for the American consumer to eat. G.M.O. are essentially used to create plants with better resistant to pests and disease, a longer shelf life, and to feed the world. Though this may be seen as helpful on the first glance, there are many ethical principles that are questioned when dealing with G.M.O. Often times, there are severe allergic reactions to the genetically changed food, gene transfer, in which the modified genes may escape and begin to grown on its own in the wild, and decreased antibiotic efficacy, the antibiotic features in G.M.O. may have make medications have less of an effect. According to the article, many corporations have poured money into universities to fund research on G.M.O. while others, such as the favored Chipotle Mexican Grille have moved to reduce or completely eliminate the use of genetically modified ingredients. Many of these major companies are said to be swayed by the opinions of the general public, while pro G.M.O. corporations are willing to risk their image and experiment. G.M.O. scientists claim that these foods are completely safe and that the American public is misinformed by the media. Kevin Folta, chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida says, “They want to influence the public. They could conduct those studies on their own and put this information on their website. But nobody would believe them. There is a friggin’ war going on around this stuff. And everyone is looking to gain as much leverage as they can.”
This article is very important to the scientific world and the American public. Because of the growing population in not only the United States, but in the world, food and sustainable resources are becoming more and more difficult to find. With technology becoming more advanced, the knowledge and ingenuity of science is changing and expanding in many different directions. Studies in medicine and health are beginning to influence the American lifestyle, so opinions on G.M.O. may be starring in the headlines for a while. There are those who stand by organic food products, those backed by companies such as Trader Joe’s, Cheerios, and Stonyfield Farms. But there are also those who encourage genetically modified food, such as Monsanto. I personally, think that organic food is more safe and is healthier for humans but with a further investigation, I feel that G.M.O. could benefit to those who live in third world countries with limited resources and potentially be one step closer to solving world hunger.
In my opinion, I feel that this article was written very well. The author gave a great summary of G.M.O. and provided both sides to the argument, which gave me insight as to why companies such as chose to use or disuse them. The article was detailed and provided plenty of explanations for everything, but this is where there were some issues for me. Though there was no time in which I was very confused content-wise, the article became very long, wordy, and repetitive. I became easily bored and distracted after a while. Even so, I felt that the author’s intention was to be informative. Because he included many quotes from experts on the subject: scientists or ambassadors of food companies. This ensured all of his explanations and made me feel that this information is reliable. I also noticed that the author seemed to know a lot about what he was talking about, definitely a sign of good research, and knew how to correctly portray the information in an understandable way to the reader.
Lipton, Eric. "Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Sept. 2015. Web. 8 Sept. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.
Hadley,
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed reading your response to this article. It informed greatly about the topic of GMOs. One thing that I liked about your response was how straightforward you were in your writing. For example, when describing the positive characteristics of GMOs, you said, "G.M.O. are essentially used to create plants with better resistant to pests and disease, a longer shelf life, and to feed the world." You were very clear and concise in the list you gave here, which made it very easy to follow your writing. Another aspect of this response that I liked was how it showed both sides of GMOs. In one sentence, you listed all of the pros of GMOs, and, in the next one, you listed all of the cons. You gave both sides of the argument, which enabled the reader to form his or her opinion. One last thing that I liked about your response was the way you connected the concept of GMOs to the outside world and the reader by incorporating big-name brands, like Trader Joe’s, Cheerios, Chipotle Mexican Grill, and Stonyfield Farms into your response. This allowed the reader to gain more of a sense of familiarity when grasping the rather abstract idea of genetically modified organisms. While I loved you response overall, there were a couple of things that I didn't like. One of these was that, when stating your own opinion on the matter, you did not go into much detail as to why you supported organic foods more than GMOs. I feel that if you elaborated more on your argument, it could have been more convincing. Another thing that struck me as a rather basic mistake was the lack of the author's name in the introduction. While his name was included in the citation for the article, it would have been nice to include his name in the introduction, for I believe it would have helped the reader understand where the article was coming from. One thing I learned by reading your response was that "there are severe allergic reactions to the genetically changed food, gene transfer, in which the modified genes may escape and begin to grown on its own in the wild, and decreased antibiotic efficacy, the antibiotic features in G.M.O. may have make medications have less of an effect." This list of downsides to GMOs exceeded my prior knowledge on the topic by a lot. This was probably where I learned the most in your response. On the whole, I loved your response and found it clear and informative.