WRT 205 Unit 2

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Bollman1

Emily Bollman
Professor Dillingham
WRT 2015 - M063
20 February 2016
Modified Perceptions of Genetic Modification
Genetic modification of consumable plants and organisms has become a much debated
hot topic surrounding food politics. Genetic modification is when molecular geneticists cut and
modify the DNA sequences in plants so that when they grow they will produce predetermined
traits advantageous to the grower. Growers, within reason, can make plants bigger, more resistant
to drought, containing more vitamins, more resistant to herbicides and pesticides, able to filter
certain pollutants better, etcetera etcetera. People are concerned about geneticists playing God
and messing with the natural order of things. Most have been taught that all natural and organic
food choices are essential to lead a healthy lifestyle so when news comes out that their produce
was modified in a lab, they think theyre eating some kind of frankenfood abomination which
then equates to not living the natural organic lifestyle that is so sought after. This may be a fatal
rush to judgement. Along with news that causes GMO panic, there is more scientifically backed
up news that claims the hysteria isnt warranted and GM products cause no health concerns.
Some even claim that GMs are essential to the sustainability of the planet and its people. Others
argue that we have been consuming modified species since the dawn of agriculture. How
accurate are these claims that support GM science? Were we ever without GMs? Are there
sustainable benefits to GMs? Ultimately the question that should be answered is why do people
fear so much?

Bollman2
What blocks scientists from getting the real facts through to the public are published
scientific studies that make harsh claims about the legitimacy and harmful health disadvantages
of GMs. The collected research are all from the point of view of what real scientists, not skeptics,
are saying on the subject. Three sources were examined, one is from an internet publication, one
is a personal interview, and the other is from an academic book of collected essays. They use
logos, ethos and pathos to aid readers into seeing the logic of their research, and filter the fear
and concern caused by others lack of knowledge.
Collective evolution, a Wikipedia like, community driven website, published an article
titled 10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health on April 8th
2014 by Arjun Walia. The article blew up receiving hundreds of comments and thousands of
views and shares. It caught the attention of Layla Katiraee who wrote a retaliation article. While
Walia bashed GMOs through studies, Katiraee sardonically corrected Walias article and every
study Walia put forward by proving them all to be junk science. Kariraees article, published on
November 13th 2015, is titled: 10 Studies Proving GMOs are Harmful? Not if Science
Matters. Right off the bat she uses ethos to humorize the article shes responding to with a
sarcastic sting. From the get go she claims that her argument matters more because it is actually
rooted in science. She goes in questioning Are these concerns credible? What do the studies
cited actually claim? Katiraee holds a PhD in molecular genetics and is well versed in the
science behind gene tinkering. She works in labs and understands the proper way to go about an
experiment. Her expertise is helpful to answer the questions shes set up for herself and her
audience. The article has a strong appeal to ethos as it outlines the disastrous flaws within many
of the experiments that ultimately discredit them. Its wrong to misinform people, so she shows
how the studies are mis informants. She gives hyperlinks to the studies so people can asses and

Bollman3
see the misinformation for themselves. For example, one of the studies that claimed genetically
modified corn linked to rat tumors was retracted, and recently republished, in a different journal
without being peer reviewed showing that the study was initially taken down due to its
inaccuracy and republished somewhere else that didnt review it beforehand. If that doesnt
make one skeptical enough, Katiraee describes how The paper identified tumors in rats that
were fed GMOs and/or the herbicide glyphosate long term. But the strain of rat used was
predisposed to tumors. The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it
was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food, the chemical or to the fact that
the strain of rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed. Many of the studies
Katiraee goes into are published by journals that do not peer review and are looked down upon
by prestigious journals. It makes the audience question whether or not they can trust the sources
they are getting their information from. Katiraee concludes that the scientific consensus
regarding GMOs as safe for human consumption remains unchanged and the majority of studies
that perpetuate that they are unsafe for consumption are either obviously flawed or are not
scientific studies.
Are GMs really a new phenomenon? Neil Degrasse Tyson argues that practically every
food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food. On July 24th
2014 Tyson was recorded giving a personal interview about his views on transgenic plants. His
response was uploaded to YouTube and racked up over one million views. Neil Degrasse Tyson
is a celebrity most commonly known for being the spokesperson for the Fox documentary series
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. He is also known for his contributions as an astrophysicist,
cosmologist and author. In this interview, he makes the audience look through an evolutionary
lens of artificial selection and suggests that agriculture has been genetically modifying plants

Bollman4
since cultivation began. Artificial selection is taking plants or animals with the best traits and
farming them, then picking the most advantageous of the advantageous to farm for the next
season. This process has sped up evolution in a similar way to scientific modification because
there is way more controlled production through human cultivation than there would be if the
plants were growing in the wild. So now we can do it in a lab and all of a sudden youre going
to complain? Tyson appeals to pathos and logos mostly with his tone and examples. Since this
source is a video recording, you really get to see the passionate thought process of the speaker.
As he gives his answer, he gets more expressive and fervent. Its easy to get behind what a
person is saying when they say it with gumption. What makes the audience really get behind
Tysons argument is the logos. Its an argument that people dont necessarily consider when it
comes to GMOs and it might evoke a sense of new knowledge that connects them to the topic in
a different way. List all the fruits and ask if there's a wild counterpart if there is it's not as large
it's not as sweet it's not as juicy and has way more seeds in it. We have systematically genetically
modified all the foods the vegetables and animals that we have eaten ever since we cultivated
them. Some examples of these organisms he gives include apples, long stem roses, cows,
silkworms, and watermelons. Based on Tyson's interview the physical proof of this systematic
genetic alteration is all around us. Its the large berries that we buy to bake in a pie, its the eggs
we cook for breakfast and the silk we drape around our neck in a tie or a scarf. Tyson takes the
audience through his thought process with good examples, scientific reasoning and passion.
Though he is a world renowned scientist he gives no further sources in his argument so some
may question if his claims are valid.
James E. McWilliamss essay The Green Monster: Could Frankenfoods Be Good for the
Environment? was published in The Eater Reader in 2011. He uses powerful rhetoric which

Bollman5
subtly shifts a GMO skeptic into seeing their benefits purely from a sustainability viewpoint
instead of a human consumption viewpoint. The beauty of his writing is that his bias is a meta
message, and his ending stance is up for interpretation. Its not forced on the reader which makes
them more inclined to consider rather than counter. He appeals to logos mostly, traversing his
way through the perception of GMOs by multiple different parties ranging from the average
consumer to anti-biotech advocates. They think the technology causes contamination in gene
pools and is just plain creepy. He then forwards the discussion by using someones opinion to
make the point that instead of [GMOs] serving the rapacity of agribusiness, [they] foster the
fundamentals of sustainability. Instead of bringing out his own opinion he authorizes someone
else's to introduce the core of his message; GMOs are essential for environmental sustainability.
He appeals to logos by giving detailed examples of how GMOs are affecting the environment in
beneficial ways. Consider grass fed beef. It is seen as the most sustainable beef source but when
cows eat grass containing lignin they emit large amounts of methane which is 20 times as
powerful as carbon dioxide. Genetically modifying grass so that it contains little to no lignin
makes the most sustainable option even more sustainable. Less lignin mean less methane, less
methane means less global warming emissions so grass fed beef advocates can eat their beef
without hanging up their green stripes. A few of these examples include plants that filter more
nitrogen and carbon dioxide, pigs that produce lesser amounts phosphorus seen in their manure,
and sugar beets that require less water and have higher yields than cane sugar. McWilliams eases
the reader into seeing the potential benefits of GMOs through examples and as little bias as
possible. Only in the final paragraph he really stakes his belief that These products have potential
to curb the damage large scale food production has caused on the environment and create a more
sustainable future. Based on this, shouldnt people at least consider their use instead of

Bollman6
blacklisting them completely? Their condemnation of GMOs might have been a fatal rush to
judgement and should be reconsidered in this new light of preservation. This article is very
important for people to take the issue off of themselves and put it on the planet which is a real
and more serious concern. McWilliams does a good job of giving statistics and examples making
his claim valid.
The three sources analyzed are all connected. Kaitraees article is to point out that a lot of
the information people are fearful of is coming from flawed journals and flawed experiments. It
uses pathos to reel people in with her informal yet professional, sardonic yet humorous tone then
uses ethos to hook their judgement through her thorough and poignantly accurate research of
each study. Once people understand Layla Kaitree they are more comfortable with the scientific
community that promotes GMOs, and one of the people from the community is Neil Degrasse
Tyson. Tysons interview uses pathos to passionately bring the audience on an evolutionary
journey of how we ended up with the food we eat today and how the food we eat today is not so
different than those genetically modified. He uses logos to give examples of these foods and how
the process is called artificial selection and its been happening ever since we could cultivate
crops. Once people are comfortable with the notion that weve been susceptible to altered crops
for thousands of years, they might shift their focus from how GMOs impact us to how GMOs
impact the world. James Mcwilliams uses a forwarding technique called authoring to get his
audience thinking about how GMOs can create a more sustainable environment. Then he uses
logos to provide a base to the examples that drive this new way of thinking. The three articles
create a line of reasoning that makes people comfortable with the idea of GMs and even changes
their opinion on their use entirely. Each author appeals to logos, which is very important because
GMOs ultimately boil down to science, and science is the reasoning of a truth.

Bollman7
So why do people fear so much? GMOs should not be so much considered in the vein of
human consumption but the sustainability of the world. It seems most of the energy surrounding
the subject is in the latters vein. Each source shares a common thread of giving information to
enlighten those who are ignorant to the benefits of genetic modification. Once people read these
and possibly alleviate their fear of this emergent science it can be studied and applied without
judgement. People shouldnt be fearful of GMO tomatoes going rogue in the streets and
terrorizing poor civilians, because the tomatoes might just save them, and the planet as well.

Bollman8
Works Cited
Tyson, Neil DeGrasse. Personal interview. 24 July 2014
On July 24th 2014 Neil Degrasse Tyson, a prolific scientist and spokesperson for the
acclaimed Fox docuseries Cosmos, spoke personally about his opinion on GMO foods arguing
that practically every food one buys in the store is genetically modified in some way due to the
long history of artificial selection caused by a sedentary agricultural lifestyle. Tyson supports his
argument by giving various examples of products that people consume that would not be
possible without genetic modification such as Red Delicious Apples, silk, cows, and long stem
roses. He uses archaeological terms to detail that genetic modification is not a big deal and we
have been doing it since cultivation began. DeGrasses purpose is to bring a new sense of logic to
the argument in order to convince those who are fearful of this emergent science to consider and
if theyre the complaining they should try to only eat the seedy tart counterparts of GMO fruits
and see how they feel. DeGrasse is addressing an audience informally and to anyone who wants
to listen, in short, this is his truth. He has his facts straight an presents them in a clear and
passionate manner.
McWilliams, James E. The Green Monster: Could Frankenfoods Be Good for the
Environment? The Eater Reader. Ed. James Miller. Boston, MA.: Longman, 2011. 164168. Print.
James McWilliams is a prolific essay writer and history teacher whose piece The Green
Monster: Could Frankenfoods Be Good for the Environment was featured in a Longmans topic
reader called The Eater Reader (2011) discussing that genetically modified organisms have the
potential to curb the damage large scale food production has caused on the environment.

Bollman9
McWilliams supports his claim by bringing up the other side's concerns but challenging them
with facts that prove the long term sustainability of GMOs and how that position is far greater
than the ignorant worries of those who think they will get a sudden allergic reaction. His purpose
is to get people thinking about a whole other issue that can be solved and how it isnt being given
a chance because people are scared of the new technology. The author is speaking to anyone who
is willing and interested. His language is simple enough for readers of all types and he does a
good job of staying neutral through his facts so as to not push any bias before he stakes his final
claim.
Katiraee, Layla. "10 Studies Proving GMOs Are Harmful? Not If Science Matters | Genetic
Literacy Project." Genetic Literacy Project. Genetic Literacy Project, 13 Nov. 2015. Web.
01 Apr. 2016.
Layla Katiraee, a staff scientist at integrated DNA industries, came out with an article
through a website called The Genetic Literacy Project which criticized another article that
condemned genetically modified organisms through ten different studies essentially arguing that
the concerns people harbor arent credible and the claims that studies prolificate are skeptical in
the very least. Katiraee supports her argument by diligently going through each study and finding
its flaws. She not only finds flaws within the scientific methods of the studies themselves, but the
flaws in peer reviewing, non credible scientific journal publications the studies were published
under, and the business ties to studies that are meant to make profit rather than inform. The
purpose of this article is to expose the flaws in many of the influential GMO studies in order to
educate people who may have been mislead by this junk science. Katiraee uses a tone of
sarcastic scorning as she condemns and disapproves every article that claimed to hold weight.

Bollman10
Her arguments cut through with logic and scientific loyalty and make the reader feel smarter for
debunking the nonsense right along with her.

You might also like