OutlineTopic: should genetically modified organism be allowed to continue? (No)
Introduction (Paragraph )!."oo#: $%O& which is genetically modified organism& is a fairly well'#nown concept. In orea& howeer& people are not aware of how much side'effects it has. *.+onnection information: +ompared to other countries& orea is not strict for $%O. Other countries normally use $%O as an industrial field. orean goernment does not as# manufacturers to put labels on food if $%O ,N! or proteins do not remain in the food een though the original source is $%O after processing the food. +.Thesis statement: It is essential to ta#e an interest in what we are eating. Therefore& people should #now side effects of $%O and social problems from $%O. -en though it might be a solution for a shortage of food& it ust causes a icious circle.
*ody !.Paragraph / (+ons argument ) topic sentence: $%Os hae plenty of side effects..It is not safe for human. It causes lots of incurable diseases. /.0eeds will deelop a tolerance to the weed #iller so farmers hae to spread strongerpesticides to remoe weeds1.$enetically modified seeds could hae unintended conse2uences for animals that interact with the crops and *.Paragraph 1 (+ons argument /) topic sentence: $%Os cause arious social problems..3arge multinational corporations control $%O industry. Introducing genetically engineered seeds to deeloping countries ma#es local farmers dependent upon largemultinational corporations li#e %onsanto& which could push those farmers into a cycle of debt. -4. 5armers committed suicide in India./.Organic food industry can be destroyed and superior $% strains could crowd out indigenous crops on the mar#et.1.People are against $% foods. If this protest #eeps in the world& our society will be unstable. +.Paragraph 6 (counterargument and refutation) topic sentence: genetically modified foods might loo# li#e a magic bullet because of many benefits but it causes a spiral of iolence..The tasty& the 2uality and nutrition of $%O might be better li#e golden rice but most people don7t beliee the safety and they don7t want to eat $%O food. -4. 8ussia/.,rought' and soil'tolerant crops are cultiated by $%O techni2ue. "oweer& it cannot be sure the stable price of crops.1.%ost $% crops are engineered to be herbicide tolerant but the weed #iller which has made for genetically modified seeds is lin#ed to antibiotics resistance and hormone
An Argument for GMO's in Foods Essay
1201 Words5 Pages
One of my favorite episodes of the television show, "The Simpsons", begins with Marge, the mother, serving her family a dinner of unusually large, genetically modified foods. Shortly after dinner is served, one of the potatoes eats a carrot. Although this example is comedic hyperbole, it is still an excellent illustration of the public perception of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as dangerous "Frankenfoods". This perception is out of touch with the reality of GMOs and runs contrary to a large body of scientific evidence that indicates that GMOs are safe for people and our environment.
In this paper I will be focusing my attention on foods modified to produce a certain insecticidal protein known as Bt. I…show more content…
As long as Bt and non-Bt are crops are segregated and planted adequate distances away from each other, they will pollinate themselves well before Bt pollen arrives via wind or insects. The same EPA report concludes that, in the United States, the transfer of genes to wild species is also quite low. For Bt corn and potatoes the risk is essentially zero since wild varieties do not exist here. Bt cotton is also grown in the U.S., and in Southern Florida and Hawaii where wild varieties exist the EPA has banned Bt cotton cultivation. Thus, limiting the planting of Bt crops to areas where they have no native relatives negates the problem.
The other major environmental concern, that Bt toxins pose a threat to non-target (species other than the pests which are trying to be eliminated and/or controlled) invertebrate and microbe species is similarly unfounded. EPA, 2001 concluded that:
Bt [proteins] have been tested against a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates including earthworms, collembola, daphnids, insect predators and parasites, spiders, and honeybees and have been shown to have a high degree of safety for these non-target organisms. In most cases, no adverse effects were observed even though test populations were exposed to levels of toxin in excess of 500-1,000-fold concentrations than they would be expected to encounter under field conditions.
This low risk to non-target species contrasts sharply with broad-spectrum