It is a soil microbe that was used to put foreign genes into plants and made it possible to improve crops. At this time, some animals were also starting to have their genes modified in a similar way. In the 1990s, people who knew about GM foods wanted it to be regulated. They argued that the food is changed and should be treated as a food additive so they should be regulated by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). At this time, there are still a lot of things unknown about GMOs and how it affects humans and the environment and going organic is the best option right now.
You will write an argumentative essay in your own words supporting either side of the debate in which you argue for or against the use of GM food. Before you begin planning and writing, read the two texts: 1. “GM Food Saves Lives” 2. “What We Don’t Know About GM Food Can Kill Us” As you read the texts, think about what details from the texts you might use in your argumentative essay. GM Food Saves Lives by Rebecca Wilson Genetically modified (GM) food was introduced to the citizens of the United States in 1994.
A counter argument to one of the disadvantages of genetically modified food Some antibiotics can be transferred to humans and make it harder for us to fight infections, genetically modifying foods could potentially put farmers out of work, and some important insects could be at risk because of the insecticides in foods. 6. Picture of the
The optimists are idealists that hope that nothing will go wrong with the manipulations. However, skeptics analyze the situation more and wait out for more concrete evidence. The altered cow’s milk might not have any side effects at this moment, but it may be dormant until later in life. The milk producers will be able to bring in a high yield of milk annually if the gene manipulation works, however, they will not be able to convince the countless skeptics that genetically altered cows produce a safe product. Instead of profiting from a high yield the producers will lose customers because of their anxiety towards the foreign milk.
Genetic diversity will also be greatly reduced, leaving the human race susceptible to certain diseases. The scientists with all their knowledge and skills, do not know what future consequences are in store for the designer babies. In my opinion, the ramifications could be great for such a trivial purpose. Perhaps society would be better served if scientist focused more on the enormous importance of environmental influences on our health in the future. While the public may not know much about designer babies it is hugely debated within the scientific community.
Scientists insert DNA genes from humans, plants, bacteria, viruses and animals into seed DNA to create different traits. By doing this, seeds become resistant to herbicides and pesticides. We feel our products and seeds improve agriculture and lives. What’s my name, you ask? I am Monsanto, a multinational producer of bioengineered and genetically modified seeds and plants.
“The ability to make precise genetic changes in human stem cells could be used to boost their therapeutic potential or make them more compatible with patients’ immune systems.” (Wexler 13) This achievement has set more boundaries to therapeutic cloning making funding for clone experiments dispensable. Surely, Therapeutic Cloning is a subject that should be left alone for the safety of our future generations and because it is option to an advancement in medicine not the only solution for mankind. Cloning is the type of technology that humans are not ready to face. Cloning comes with a lot suffering to the clones themselves. Clones would not have their own purpose in life or originality.
Human Embryonic Stem cell research (hESC), a highly controversial topic, has the potential to end thousands of people fall victim from diseases that are preventable. Although it seems to be a great research with remarkable outcomes, their is a dark side to it. While Trying to obtain these astonishing results and advance medical treatments, embryos will ultimately be sacrificed throughout the process. In other words, abortion will occur while seeking the solution to cure diseases. Thus creating a huge debate in the public world, and many ethical decisions to whether (hESC) is morally wrong.
However, there have been many concerns about animal treatment, public health, and environmental harm. Because these factory farms are so large, they produce enormous amounts of waste, which contributes to pollution in the water and air.1 Antibiotics used for animal disease prevention can also aid the creation of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, making it easier for humans to get new forms of infections.1 This is a very recent method of mass-producing food, and though it has benefits, many small farm owners, environmentalists, public health advocates, and neighbors of these CAFO’s question if the benefits outweigh the costs. Smaller, organic farms often practice agricultural methods that are thought to be safer and less harmful to the animals and to the surrounding environment. To account for these improved conditions, the cost of their food products increase, and the production rate is typically much lower than factory farms. Many of these organic farms are forced to use industrial agriculture techniques to keep up with the high demand for their products.
Dear Senator, In less than two decades, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have replaced our diet with genetically ajusted foods, which can affect human health. GMOs are resistant to pesticides, and is created by splicing genes that are combined through genetic engineering, smething nature cant do instantly. Consuming these genetically, processed foods can lead to increased risk of diseases and even cancer. Most of the time we do not realize that we are eating these harmful toxins as they are infused in our food without our knowledge. While traditional farming choose to grow organic produce and struggle to keep their businesses alive.