Accessibility Information and Tips Title Genetically Modi.docx

Accessibility Information and Tips
Title:
Genetically Modified Foods: Overview.
Authors:
Rich, Alex K.
Warhol, Tom
Source:
Points of View: Genetically Modified Foods. 6/1/2018, p1-1.
1p.
Document Type:
Article
Subjects:
GENETICALLY modified foods
FOOD biotechnology
PLANT genetic engineering
ORGANIC farmers
Geographic Terms:
UNITED StatesReport Available
Abstract:
The article presents an overview of issues related to genetically
modified foods in the U.S.
Some of the improvements made possible by genetic
engineering of food crops such as
herbicide-resistant soybeans and insecticidal corn are cited. It
traces the history of GM food and
its regulation by the U.S. government. The problems posed by
GM contamination for organic
farmers are discussed.
Lexile:
1420
ISBN:
9781429815529

Accession Number:
23253318
Genetically Modified Foods: Overview
Full Text
Related Items
Point: The Next Agricultural Revolution.
Counterpoint: The Pandora's Box of Genetically Modified
Foods.
Genetically Modified Foods: Guide to Critical Analysis.
Genetically Modified Foods.
Genetically Modified Rice
Demonstrators in Ottawa calling for the government to make it
mandatory to labell genetically
modified foods
Genetically Altered Foods: Hazards or Harmless?
Choose a Topic.

Evaluate a Website.
Write a Topic Sentence.
How To Understand the Bias of a Publication
CURRICULUM STANDARDS--U.S.
Introduction
Genetically modified food (also GM food, bioengineered food,
genetically modified organisms,
GMOs) is food in which, at some point during the production
process, molecules and proteins
are chemically altered to give the food more nutrients, a better
appearance, or a longer shelf
life. Genetically modified grain is often fed to livestock used
for meat and dairy products. Much
of the produce sold in the United States is grown from
genetically modified seeds.
Farming has relied on selective growth and selective breeding
for thousands of years; farmers
gather and sow seeds from plants that display desirable
characteristics, such as resistance to
certain fungi or bacteria. Over a period of several years, a
farmer could create an ideal strain of
a particular plant through a sort of artificial natural selection,
forcing the plant to evolve in the
most beneficial way to the farmer. Similarly, if certain cows
produce leaner meat than others,
those cows can be bred together to reliably produce lean beef.

With advances in humanity's understanding of DNA and
genetics, it has become possible to
speed up this process by inserting and removing specific genes
from plants and animals. Once
a gene carrying a specific favorable characteristic is identified,
it can theoretically be inserted
into any other organism to elicit that characteristic. Thus,
genetic engineering has produced
herbicide-resistant soybeans and insecticidal corn. The general
consensus is that there is no
limit to the alterations and improvements that can be made to
foods.
The United States does not require food labels to state the
presence of genetically modified
organisms or genetically modified ingredients in food products.
Products that are labeled as
"Certified Organic" must be free of GMOs; the organic label
itself, however, is voluntary.
Similarly, some companies elect to label their food products as
"GMO-free," but since these
labels are not official or certified by any government agency,
they are not as reliable as
"Certified Organic" labels. The Pew Research Center reported
in August 2015 that a poll
conducted by the Associated Press and the market research
institute GfK in 2014 found that 66
percent of Americans supported requiring GM food to be
labeled and 24 percent expressed no
preference, and a 2013 poll by the New York Times and CBS
News found that 93 percent of
respondents supported mandatory labeling. However, a sizable

majority (88 percent) of
American Association for the Advancement of Science members
believe that GM food is not
significantly different from other food and that it is safe to eat,
and US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) officials contend that it poses no
significant risk to consumers.
Understanding the Discussion
Certified Organic: A label applied to food that meets certain
regulations regarding renewable,
ecologically based production methods, including the absence of
growth hormones, most
pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and any GMOs. To receive the
organic label, a product must be
inspected by the USDA to ensure that specific practices are
followed during its production,
cultivation, storage, and transportation. Organizations that sell
less than $5,000 worth of organic
products each year are exempt from certification by the USDA.
Food Additive: According to the FDA, a food additive is any
substance added to food during
production, processing, treatment, packaging, transportation, or
storage which affects any of the
characteristics of the food. Direct additives are usually used to
maintain product consistency,
improve or retain nutritional value, prevent spoilage, improve
color or appearance, or control
other factors such as acidity. Indirect additives are those that
may get into food in trace amounts
due to packaging or transportation.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA): A regulatory agency of
the US government that controls
food, dietary supplements, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices,

radiation-emitting devices,
biologics, and blood products. The stated purpose of the FDA is
to protect American citizens
from potentially harmful products in these categories.
GRAS: Acronym for "Generally Recognized as Safe," an FDA
designation referring to a food
additive for which experts have attested to its safety, usually
because of their longstanding
common use or scientific vetting prior to 1958. GRAS
substances are not regulated as food
additives by the FDA or the USDA, but are monitored: their
GRAS status may be revoked in
light of new evidence regarding their safety.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): A cabinet-
level department in the US
government that develops and enforces policy related to
farming, agriculture, and food. The
current major concern of the USDA is to maintain and promote
the country's agriculture industry
by helping farmers sell and distribute their products.
History
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act of 1938
established the FDA, and gave the
agency the authority to regulate food and food ingredients and
to establish certain requirements
for food labeling and packaging. Twenty years later, the act was
amended in order to broaden
the FDA's authority to include regulation of food additives;
some additives had already been
approved by the USDA, and were automatically approved by the

FDA, as well.
In 1977, scientists discovered that a soil microbe,
Agrobacterium tumefaciens, was capable of
injecting foreign genes into plants, and the potential for
modifying and improving plant crops
was immediately recognized. Early experiments with the soil
bug produced plants that were
resistant to insects and herbicides. Most of the genetic
modification since then has involved
plants, but some animals have had their genes manipulated in
similar ways, including cows that
produce casein-enriched milk for ease in making cheese, mice
that contain healthy fish oils, and
pigs augmented with spinach genes to produce low-fat bacon.
In the early 1990s, the government recognized that GM food
warranted consideration and
possible regulation. Former Vice President Dan Quayle headed
a regulatory review committee
that dealt with genetically modified food. The committee ruled
that GM food had "substantial
equivalence" with unaltered food, and therefore did not need to
be regulated by the FDA.
Despite this decision, the majority of the public who are aware
of GMOs believes the FDA is
monitoring their use. Opponents of the decision claim that the
food is changed and augmented;
therefore, the genetic modifications should be treated as food
additives, and they should be
monitored and regulated by the FDA.
The first genetically modified tomato appeared on US grocery
store shelves in 1994. Supporters
of GM food immediately claimed that the process can increase
flavor and nutrition and reduce

cost by removing the guesswork from food production.
Opponents claimed that genetic
engineering has not been sufficiently studied and could
potentially be unsafe. Like the rationale
used in protests over the use of antibiotics, many people feel
that creating insect-proof plants
will just create stronger, more resistant insects. The question of
biodiversity is also critical when
discussing GM foods, though there is evidence showing that GM
crops both reduce and
increase biodiversity.
In February 1999, biochemist Arpad Pustzai at the Rowett
Research Institute in Scotland and
his colleagues found that some strains of GM potatoes were
toxic to rats. Despite being
criticized by other scientists, the study prompted a public
backlash against GM food in Europe.
Eventually, Europe began to impose strict regulations on the
cultivation and importation of GM
food.
Genetically Modified Foods Today
According to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, the
United States has been the
leader in GM crop planting since the mid-1990s. As of 2003,
105.7 million acres of American
farmland were devoted to GM crops such as corn, cotton, and
soybeans. The Pew Initiative also
found that most Americans do not feel strongly one way or the
other about GM foods. The study
indicated that the majority of Americans are unaware of, and
unconcerned about, GM foods.

In the United States, the two major political parties are both
generally in favor of GM food,
making controversy all but nonexistent. Critics of GMOs,
however, claim that consumers are not
given the choice of whether to accept or reject the alleged
benefits of GM food because they are
not informed about which foods have been genetically modified.
In August 2006, the USDA announced that pollen from
genetically modified rice had
contaminated crops in Arkansas, prompting Japan and the
European Union to ban imports of
US long-grain rice. Pollen drift of this sort has been a problem
for several years, particularly with
so-called "pharma crops," which are developed for potential use
in pharmaceuticals. Seed
contamination, often caused by something as simple as spilled
GM seed in a truck getting
mixed in with normal seeds before being planted, can also cause
crop contamination. A 2006
survey of 45 organic farms in Spain found that approximately
25 percent of their crops had been
contaminated with pollen from GM crops.
GM contamination poses problems for organic farmers, who
would lose their certification if their
crops were discovered to be contaminated. Even though GM
crops are not regulated, organic
crops are, and to be certified organic by the USDA, crops must
be completely free of genetic
modifications. There is currently a large market for organic
products in the United States for just
this reason. European countries often refuse crops that are not
free of genetic modification, due
to strict regulatory practices.

Many advocates for GM crops claim that preventing
contamination is a simple matter of planting
buffer crops, or other plants that form a barrier between the
organic crops and potential sources
of contamination, but often this solution is not feasible for
small farms. Others have proposed
using the principles of genetic modification to solve the
problem, by sterilizing GM plants so that
they would be unable to produce pollen or viable seeds.
In June 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto
Co., which had been ordered
by a lower court to stop selling pesticide-resistant alfalfa seeds
before the culmination of an
environmental study. The seeds had been criticized by
opponents who believe they may
contaminate unmodified alfalfa fields.
In July 2015, the House of Representatives took a step toward
preventing individual states from
instituting their own laws regarding mandatory labels on food
products that contain GMOs. The
House passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which
would create a voluntary federal
program for companies that wish to certify their products as
GMO-free. The bill would have
prevented states such as Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont,
which have passed laws requiring
the labeling of GMOs, from enforcing them. Proponents of the
legislation argued that mandatory
labels would send a misleading message that GMOs are
dangerous. However, once the bill

reached the Senate, it was referred to committee and was not
voted on.
In July 2016, a bill passed by Congress to amend the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 was
signed into law by President Barack Obama. The new law
establishes a national standard for
defining "bioengineered food," subject to refinement by the
secretary of agriculture, and requires
manufacturers to label foods that meet that standard; however,
it also gives companies
significant leeway with regard to what form that label should
take. Manufacturers may choose to
provide a simple text label, use a standard icon, include a
scannable quick-response (QR) code
directing consumers to an information website, or have
consumers call a toll-free number.
Opponents of GMO labeling objected to the new law, claiming
that it perpetuates misguided
fears about GMO foods and that the measures necessary to
comply with it would likely lead to
increases in food costs, while supporters objected to the
perceived laxity of the labeling
requirement.
After passage of the 2016 GMO food labeling law, the USDA
was tasked with developing the
national standard for labeling bioengineered foods, called the
National Bioengineered Food
Disclosure Standard (NBFDS). In May 2018, the USDA
published an incomplete draft of the
NBFDS and opened it to public review and input through July 3,
2018. The USDA was
particularly interested in public feedback on how to label
ingredients that are used in forms that
are processed to the extent that they do not contain detectable

amounts of genetic material. The
USDA also had yet to decide on contamination thresholds for
labeling non-GMO foods that may
inadvertently or unavoidably contain a percentage of
bioengineered foods. When the NBFDS
goes into effect in 2020, food manufacturers will be required by
law to use NBFDS labels.
These essays and any opinions, information or representations
contained therein are the
creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect
the opinion of EBSCO Information
Services.
1n1.jpg.
Bibliography
Books
Ahmed, Farid E., editor. Testing of Genetically Modified
Organisms in Foods. Food Products
Press, 2004.
Ruse, Michael, and David Castle, editors. Genetically Modified
Foods: Debating Biotechnology.
Prometheus Books, 2002.
Periodicals
Bittman, Mark. "GMO Labeling Law Could Stir a Revolution."
The New York Times, 2 Sept.
2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/opinion/gmo-labeling-law-

could-stir-a-revolution.html.
Accessed 14 Oct. 2016.
"Genetically Modified Foods." Congressional Digest, Mar.
2001, p. 65. Points of View Reference
Center,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=44
83488&site=pov-live.
Hemphill, Thomas A., and Syagnik Banerjee. "Mandatory Food
Labeling for GMOs." Regulation,
vol. 37, no. 4, 2014-15, pp. 7-10. Business Source Complete,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=100
700018&site=eds-live.
Jalonick, Mary Clare. "Genetically Modified Foods Confuse
Consumers." The Big Story,
Associated Press, 17 May 2014,
bigstory.ap.org/article/genetically-modified-foods-confuse-
consumers-1. Accessed 11 Oct.
2016.
Jalonick, Mary Clare. "USDA Develops New Government Label
for GMO-Free Products."
Washington Post, 14 May 2015,
www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/usda-
develops-certification-labeling-for-gmo-f
ree-foods/2015/05/14/61822a1c-fa54-11e4-9ef4-
1bb7ce3b3fb7%5Fstory.html. Accessed 11
Oct. 2016.
Kendall, Brent. "High Court Sides with Monsanto in Alfalfa
Case." Wall Street Journal, 22 June
2010,

www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405274870489520457532066
4136428870. Accessed
11 Oct. 2016.
Koons, Jennifer. "Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Planting GM
Alfalfa." New York Times, 21 June
2010,
www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/21/21greenwire-supreme-
court-lifts-ban-on-planting-gm-alfalfa
-57894.html. Accessed 11 Oct. 2016.
Lappé, Anna, and Matthew Willse. "GMO Giant." Nation, 11
Sept. 2006, p. 32. Points of View
Reference Center,
060247&site=pov-live. Accessed
11 Oct. 2016.
McAuliff, Michael. "House Votes to Ban States from Labeling
GMO Foods." Huffington Post, 23
July 2015,
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gmo-labels-
food%5Fus%5F55b12fabe4b08f57d5d3f393.
Ostrander, Madeline. "Can GMOs Help Feed a Hot and Hungry
World?" Nation, 1 Sept. 2014,
pp. 23-27. Points of View Reference Center,
11 Oct. 2016.
"Should the FDA Adopt a Stricter Policy on Genetically

Engineered Foods? Pro." Congressional
Digest, Mar. 2001, pp. 76+. Points of View Reference Center,
11 Oct. 2016.
Wozniacka, Gosia. "Despite Losing in Liberal Oregon,
Advocates of GMO Labeling Say They've
Just Begun to Fight." Canadian Press. Canadian Press, 6 Nov.
2014. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Websites and Digital Files
Anderson, Monica. "Amid Debate over Labeling GM Foods,
Most Americans Believe They're
Unsafe." Fact Tank, Pew Research Center, 11 Aug. 2015,
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/11/amid-debate-over-
labeling-gm-foods-most-america
ns-believe-theyre-unsafe/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2016.
Fama, Richard. "The New GMO Labeling Law: A Matter of
Perspective." Food Safety News,
Marler Clark, 8 Sept. 2016,
www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/09/the-new-gmo-labeling-law-
a-matter-of-perspective/.
Timmer, John. "USDA Wants Public Comments on Its Plan to
Label GMO Foods." Ars
Technica, 9 May 2018,
arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/usda-wants-public-comments-
on-its-plan-to-label-gmo-foods/.
~~~~~~~~
By Alex K. Rich and Tom Warhol

Tom Warhol is a naturalist, writer, and photographer living in
Vermont. He holds a Master of
Science degree in Forestry from the University of
Massachusetts, and he has worked as a
conservation professional for eight years, with the
Massachusetts Riverways Program, the
Nature Conservancy, and the American Chestnut Foundation. He
is also the author of several
books, including Biomes of Earth, a six-volume series, and
three volumes in Benchmark Books'
Animalways series: Eagles, Hawks, and Owls.
Copyright of Points of View: Genetically Modified Foods is the
property of Great Neck
Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download,
or email articles for individual use.
Undergraduate Discussion Rubric
Overview
Your active participation in the discussions is essential to your

overall success this term. Discussion questions will help you
make meaningful connections
between the course content and the larger concepts of the
course. These discussions give you a chance to express your
own thoughts, ask questions, and gain
insight from your peers and instructor.
Directions
For each discussion, you must create one initial post and follow
up with at least two response posts.
For your initial post, do the following:
11:59 p.m. Eastern.
ur initial post by
Thursday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
appropriate. Use proper citation methods for your discipline
when referencing scholarly or
popular sources.
For your response posts, do the following:
post thread.
at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.

posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
“I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in
the discussion prompt.
Rubric
Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement
Not Evident Value
Comprehension Develops an initial post with an
organized, clear point of view or
idea using rich and significant detail
(100%)
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea using
adequate organization and
detail (85%)
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea but with
some gaps in organization and
detail (55%)
Does not develop an initial post
with an organized point of view
or idea (0%)
40
Timeliness N/A Submits initial post on time

(100%)
Submits initial post one day late
(55%)
Submits initial post two or more
days late (0%)
10
Engagement Provides relevant and meaningful
response posts with clarifying
explanation and detail (100%)
Provides relevant response
posts with some explanation
and detail (85%)
Provides somewhat relevant
response posts with some
explanation and detail (55%)
Provides response posts that
are generic with little
explanation or detail (0%)
30
Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement
Not Evident Value
Writing
(Mechanics)

Writes posts that are easily
understood, clear, and concise
using proper citation methods
where applicable with no errors in
citations (100%)
Writes posts that are easily
understood using proper
citation methods where
applicable with few errors in
citations (85%)
Writes posts that are
understandable using proper
citation methods where
applicable with a number of
errors in citations (55%)
Writes posts that others are not
able to understand and does
not use proper citation
methods where applicable (0%)
20
Total 100%
2-1 Discussion
PreviousNext
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to
elaborate and explain.

· Waffles and Workers' Rights (EEOC v. Waffle House, p. 84-
85)
Read about arbitration law in Chapter 4 and Case 4-3 in your
textbook and do some online research on the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Then discuss
the following:
What is the EEOC's role in regard to business? Does the court
say that the EEOC trumps the arbitration contract between the
employee and the employer? If so, why? What are the pros and
cons of arbitration agreements? Do you think arbitration
agreements between big companies and low wage earners who
are uninformed about the law are truly fair? If you have any
experiences at work with discrimination policies or EEOC
trainings, share those experiences.
· Where in the World? J. McIntyre vs. Nicastro #6, p. 68
Read both the summary of the J. McIntyre v. Nicastro case on
page 68 and the court's full decision via the link provided. (You
need only read up to the word "Reversed" and do not have to
read the concurrence or the dissent – although you are welcome
to do so! Summarize what factors the court looks at in
determining where a case can be brought. What was the court's
final decision, and do you think the decision was correct? Why
or why not?
Example Outline for the Pro-Position Paper using the Toulmin
Model
Introduction
Attention Grabber
Thesis Statement (Pro-position + reasoning via your 3 key
points/grounds)
Context
Qualifiers and/or

Definitions and/or
Background info
Grounds / 1st Pro-point
Backing (establish credibility of the source)
Warrant (evidence)
Connection/Transition
Grounds / 2nd Pro-point
Warrant (evidence)
Grounds / 3rd Pro-point
Warrant (evidence)
Conclusion
*Normally, the Toulmin model would also include a
counterargument and rebuttal, but we will
save that for the combined pro/con position paper in Week 7.
Although you are not required to submit an outline for this
paper, it does help to see how the
argument will be presented and where your 3 secondary sources
might be most useful. From
here, you can begin drafting the body of the paper. Focus on the
body paragraphs first, then
work your way back to the intro and conclusion. For shorter
papers like this one, the intro and
conclusion usually reflect each other, so it makes sense to write
them together. As our text
notes, "If you can't think of a clever opening, state your claim
and move on to the body of the
essay. After you draft your reasons and evidence, a good
opening may occur to you" (Seyler &
Brizee, 2018, 104).
Man with tie and no face

Strive for a formal, objective tone by applying only third-person
point of view. First-person (I, me,
my, we, our, us, mine) and second-person (you, your) point of
view can cause the tone of the
paper to sound casual and even accusatory. On pages 106-107,
Seyler and Brizee (2018)
present means of avoiding aggressive or discriminatory word
choice and tone, such as
"language that is racist or sexist or reflects negatively on older
or differently abled persons or
those who do not share your sexual orientation or religious
beliefs." Remember, the goal is to
convince your audience, but an audience put on the defensive by
inflammatory word choices is
less likely to listen.
Set some time aside to revise and edit the document before your
submission. Our text has a
helpful checklist on page 107.
Click on the first link to review the checklist in this lesson or
the second link to download a PDF
version.
Link: Revision Checklist
Link (PDF): Revision ChecklistPreview the document
References
Olsen, G.A. (1993). Literary theory, philosophy of science, and
persuasive discourse: Thoughts
from a Neo-premodernist. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13
(2), 283-309.

Seyler, D.U. & Brizee, A. (2018). Read, reason, write: An
argument text and reader (12th ed.)
New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.
Point: Genetically Modified Foods will
Dramatically Improve Agriculture Around
the World.
Authors:
Bowman, Jeffrey
Griswold, Marcus
Source:
Points of View: Genetically Modified Foods. 6/1/2018, p2-2.
1p.
Document Type:
Article
Subjects:
GENETICALLY modified foods
FOOD biotechnology
POPULATION
PLANT genetic engineering
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Abstract:
The article emphasizes the necessity and the many benefits of
genetically
modified (GM) foods. It notes the importance of GM foods in

relation to the
increasing global population. It traces the history of engineered
food. The impact of
genetic engineering on pesticide use of GM farmers is
discussed. It argues that
there is no definitive proof that GM foods are harmful to the
environment or to
human health so there is no need to ban GM foods.
Lexile:
1250
ISBN:
9781429815529
Accession Number:
26612613
Database:
Points of View Reference Center
Choose Language‫ةیزیلجنلإا‬/‫ةیبرعلا‬английски
език/български英语/简体中文英語/繁體中文
angličtina/češtinaEngelsk/danskEngels/NederlandsAnglais/Fran
çaisEnglisch/DeutschΑγγλικά/ΕλληνικάEn
glish/Hausa‫ילגנא‬/‫תירבנא‬अअअअअअ/�ह अअ�angol/magyarInggri
s/bahasa IndonesiaInglese/Italiano英語/日本語영어/
한국어Engelsk/Norsk‫یسیلگنا‬/‫یسراف‬angielski/polskiInglés/Por
tuguêsEnglish/PashtoEngleză/
românăАнглийский/РусскийInglés/EspañolEnglish/SerbianAng
leški/SlovenskiAngličtina/
SlovenčinaEngelska/svenskaअअअअअअ/ไ ทย İngilizce/TürkАнг
лійська/Українська‫یزیرگنا‬/‫ودرا‬
Point: Genetically Modified Foods will
Dramatically Improve Agriculture Around the

World
Full Text
Listen
American Accent Australian Accent British Accent
Related Items
●
Genetically Modified Foods: An Overview.
●
Counterpoint: The Pandora's Box of Genetically Modified
Foods.
●
Genetically Modified Foods: Guide to Critical Analysis.
●
Genetically Modified Foods.
https://app-na-readspeaker-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/cgi-
bin/rsent?customerid=5845&lang=en_us&readid=rs_full_text_c
ontainer_title&url=https%3A%2F%2Feds-a-ebscohost-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org%2Feds%2Fdetail%2Fd
etail%3Fvid%3D3%26sid%3D0dd789dd-e063-4d9f-9fce-
775935876b1f%2540sdc-v-
sessmgr03%26bdata%3DJnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU
9c2l0ZQ%253d%253d&speedValue=medium&download=true&a
udiofilename=PointGeneticallyModifiedFoodswill-
BowmanJeffrey-20180601

https://eds-a-ebscohost-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/[email prote
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
●
Genetically Modified Rice
●
Demonstrators in Ottawa calling for the government to make it
mandatory to labell
genetically modified foods
●
Genetically Altered Foods: Hazards or Harmless?
●
Choose a Topic.
●
Evaluate a Website.
●
Write a Topic Sentence.
●
How To Understand the Bias of a Publication

●
CURRICULUM STANDARDS--U.S.
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
cted]smgr03&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
cted]&vid=3&
Thesis: Despite the controversy surrounding genetically
modified (GM) foods, these products
represent the future of world agriculture. While there is a clear

need to use this technology responsibly,
the human population will experience a growing need for
genetically modified foods in the years to
come.
Summary: Human history is inseparable from the history of
agriculture. Without agriculture, humans
would never have evolved beyond loose groups of hunter-
gatherers. For centuries, humans have been
perfecting agricultural methods, including cross-breeding and
grafting techniques, to increase their food
supply. Genetically modified foods represent the newest in a
long line of technological innovations
intended to increase the food supply.
The global population continues to increase, and the amount of
arable land available for farming
continues to decrease. With less land and more people, the
world will continue to experience an
increased need for genetically modified foods because they
produce higher yields on less acreage.
Genetic modification is a new technology and scientists have
yet to understand its effects on the
environment and human health. While it is necessary to examine
these factors and use genetic
modification responsibly, it is not reasonable to ban the use of
this important technology.
A History of Engineered Food
Agriculture originated when humans began to domesticate wild
plants and animals. Over the following
centuries, farmers learned which plants produced larger yields.
Farmers would then cross-breed these
plants with other species and use the resulting seeds to produce
larger food yields and sustain larger

populations. While the original technique did not involve DNA
splicing, farmers have been using genetic
manipulation for centuries. The domesticated plants we eat
today are very 'unnatural,' in that many of
them are the genetic opposites of their wild ancestors.
This domestication of plants came about through trial and error.
Agriculture is a difficult endeavor, and
natural elements such as drought and insects often cause
harvests to fail. Famine has had a frequent and
devastating impact on the human population. In the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, however,
scientific discoveries radically broadened the limits of
agriculture. Through the new field of genetics,
scientists were able to understand DNA and the building blocks
of life. These discoveries, in turn,
explained how genetic traits are transmitted from generation to
generation.
A combination of genetic techniques, mechanical inventions
such as tractors, and chemical innovations
involving fertilizers and pesticides led to what is known as the
'Green Revolution,' a massive increase in
agricultural productivity that vastly increased the global food
supply.
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=3
&sid=0dd789dd-e063-4d9f-9fce-775935876b1f%40sdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
However, more food means that more people live longer lives;
thus, the Green Revolution also
contributed to population growth. In the late eighteenth century,

Thomas Malthus first understood that
while the food supply increases arithmetically, human
populations increase exponentially. This means
that the human population tends to increase faster than the food
supply, leading to food shortages.
Indeed, from 1928 to 1999, the world population tripled from 2
billion to 6 billion. By 2006, a quarter of the
world's population was under the age of 15. Most census
organizations predict that by 2050, if these
trends continue, 9 billion people will reside on our planet. How
will we sustain this population?
A New Stage in the Green Revolution
A number of biotechnology companies have proposed an
answer. Since 1995, many companies - most
notably the American corporation Monsanto - have been
developing and selling genetically modified
seeds worldwide. These genetically modified plants represent
the newest form of cross-breeding. By
splicing segments of DNA from one plant into the genomes of
other plants, these biotech companies have
created crops that are resistant to insects, fungi, bacteria, and
weeds. In perhaps the greatest
breakthrough, geneticists grafted pesticides and herbicides into
the genes of some plants. In the late
1990s, genetically modified versions of corn, cotton, potatoes,
tomatoes, and soy became widely
available on the market. From 1995 to 2005, genetically
modified foods were planted on 222 million
acres. The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) predicts
that there will be 370 million acres of
genetically modified crops by 2010.
As most genetically modified foods contain herbicides and
pesticides that convey resistance to insects

and blights, farmers can reduce the amount of pesticide they
spray on their crops. For example, farmers
of GM rice crops in China use 8- to 10-fold lower amounts of
pesticides than do farmers using non-GM
rice. Furthermore, GM farmers only apply these chemicals once,
rather than four times in a season.
Ultimately, this reduction in pesticide use will benefit human
health, biodiversity, and water quality in
areas where spraying has traditionally taken place.
Another prominent invention was golden rice, developed by
Swiss researchers in 2000. This genetically
modified rice provides increased levels of beta-carotene, the
building-block for vitamin A. Vitamin A
deficiencies cause blindness and increased mortality rates in
many of the world's developing countries.
Similarly, genetically modified bananas are currently being
engineered to confer vaccines against
Hepatitis B. The value of GM crops can be increased by adding
fats, proteins, and sugars to the plants,
and by increasing shelf life to provide a healthy diet for people
with limited incomes. Genetically
modified foods have the potential to become an inexpensive
way to provide medicines to developing
countries around the globe, and thus have the potential to
revolutionize how we approach public health.
Of course, an increase in public health quality would result in a
further increase in the global population.
Eventually, genetically modified foods will be essential in
meeting the growing demands of the world's
population growth. In 2004, the International Society for
Agricultural Meteorology (INSAM) released a
manifesto that stated: "fully eighteen percent of the earth's land
mass is currently being used for food

ZQ%3d%3d#toc
production." It is impossible to substantially increase the
amount of arable land. Thus, genetically
modified foods should be used to feed the growing population
so that crop yields and crop production
can be increased. Though small, GM crops can yield 10 percent
more food than can non-GM crops.
Consequently, INSAM has called for further scientific inquiry
into both genetic modification and the impact
of genetically modified foods on the environment.
The Debate over Frankenfoods
There has been a great deal of controversy over genetically
modified foods, or what some activists
label 'frankenfoods.' As of 2009, The European Union and many
Latin American nations have banned
imports of many genetically modified foods. These bans are the
result of environmental concerns that
genetically modified foods interfere with plant genetics. Plants
have evolved over millions of years, and
inserting foreign DNA into their native genome structures could
very well have massive environmental
and biological implications. Genetically modified foods could
cross-pollinate with other native plants and
create entirely new species. In addition, there is the danger that
biotech-resistant weeds and insects will
evolve, but this tends to occur when crops are sprayed with
pesticides. There are also concerns regarding
the human health effects of genetically modified foods..

However, there has been no definitive proof that genetically
modified foods are in any way harmful to
the environment or to human health. In 1999, Dr. Arpad Pustazi
published a study in the British medical
journal, Lancet, citing the potential human health hazards posed
by genetically modified potatoes. The
uproar that ensued over Pustazi's methodology has never
completely settled. Additionally, a 2007 review
of 30 studies did not find any adverse effects in humans when
the health implications of GM foods were
compared with non-GM foods. Meanwhile, GM foods have the
potential to provide impoverished nations
with jobs and affordable food. Many farmers living in poverty
cannot afford the best land and are given
land susceptible to drought and high salinity, making their lives
difficult. Additionally, climate change
predictions indicate an increase in the occurrence of droughts,
potentially placing more stress on farmers.
Drought resistant GM can grow in saline conditions, allowing
these farmers to provide for their families.
Additionally, a biotech company known as Syngenta is assisting
farmers by providing golden rice,
enriched with Vitamin A, free of charge to farmers who make
less than $10,000 a year from rice. Thus,
GM crops can allow poor farmers to provide for their families
and make a better living.
Granted, this biotechnology is a recent scientific breakthrough.
Scientists are usually the first to admit that
the implications of genetic modification are not fully known. It
is not known, for example, if GM foods will
create diseases, such as cancer, or causes birth defects. Without
a crystal ball, it is impossible to predict
all of the environmental and health effects of genetically
modified foods. Scientists do acknowledge that

there are risks involved, but place their trust in regulatory
bodies such as the United States Food and
Drug Administration and the US Environmental Protection
Agency. For better or worse, there is not much
that can be done other than prohibiting all research on
genetically modified foods.
Conclusion
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
Genetically modified foods represent a major expansion of
human knowledge. They have the potential
to guarantee a continuous food supply that is nutritious and
healthy for people throughout the entire
world. However, this technology is in its infancy and scientists
are correct in calling for further research
and stricter controls.
Despite these concerns, there remains little doubt that there will
be more and more uses for
biotechnology and genetically modified foods as the century
continues. Meanwhile, the human
population increases daily. Without increased use of
contraceptives and a push for negative growth rates,
we will continue to struggle to feed these growing populations.

Genetically modified foods offer a
solution to this complex and pressing problem.
Ponder This
1. In your opinion, is the author's argument that genetically
modified foods are just a continuation of the
Green Revolution convincing? Why or why not?
2. Do you think the author provides sufficient evidence for his
argument that human population growth
will make
the use of genetically modified foods inevitable?
● 3. The author's argument seems to rely on his assertion that
the world's population is growing
faster than its food supply. Do you agree or disagree with this
assertion? Why or why not?
● 4. Does the author make a convincing case that genetically
modified foods will benefit both
human health and the environment?
Bibliography
Books
Castle, David and Michael Ruse, eds. Genetically Modified
Foods: Debating Biotechnology. New York:
Prometheus Press, 2002.

ZQ%3d%3d#toc
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
McHughen, Alan. Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potentials and
Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Rees, Andy. Genetically Modified Food: A Short Guide for the
Confused. London: Pluto Press, 2006.
Teitel, Martin. Genetically Engineered Food: Changing the
Nature of Nature. Rochester: Park Street
Press, 2002.
Periodicals
Anderson, K., et al. "Genetically modified rice adoption:
Implications for welfare and poverty alleviation."
CIES Discussion Paper 0413 Washington, DC: World Bank,
2004.
Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot. "GM rice: Will this lead the way
for global acceptance of GM crop
technology?'" ISAAA Briefs No. 28-2003 Ithaca: Cornell
University, 2003.
Cohen, J. "Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM
crops." Nature Biotechnology 23.1 (2005):
27-33.
Coleman, Gerald D. "Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to

Hunger?" America 192.4 (21 Feb. 2005): 16.
Deal, Walter F., and Stephen L. Baird. "Genetically Modified
Foods: A Growing Need." Technology
Teacher 62.7 (Apr. 2003): 18. Academic Search Complete.
EBSCO. 22 May 2009
http://search.ebscohost.com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=946
3607&site=ehost-live.
Domingo, J. "Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: A
review of the published literature." Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 47 (2007):721-733.
"Genetically Modified Food and the Poor." New York Times (13
Oct. 2003): 20. Academic Search
Complete. EBSCO. 22 May 2009
Hicks, Lynn. "Sowing the 'optimistic science.'"
demoinesregister.com. 12 March 2011
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110313/BUSINESS
03/103130321/-1/SPORTS09/Sowing-opt
imistic-science-.
Huang, J., et al. "Assessing Productivity and Health Effects in
China
cted]&vid=3&db=pwh&ss=AN+%229463607%22&sl=ll
03/103130321/-1/SPORTS09/Sowing-optimistic-science-

03/103130321/-1/SPORTS09/Sowing-optimistic-science-
Insect-Resistant GM Rice in Farmers' Fields." Science 308.688
(2005): 688-690.
James, C. "Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops:
2002, ISAAA Briefs No. 27: Preview."
Ithaca: Internrational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
biotech Applications, 2002.
Jefferson, Valeria. "The Ethical Dilemma of Genetically
Modified Food." Journal of Environmental
Health 69.1 (July 2006): 33-34. Academic Search Complete.
EBSCO. 22 May 2009
Jonas, et al. "Safety Considerations of DNA in Food." Annals of
Nutrition & Metabolism 45.6 (Nov. 2001):
235-254. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 22 May 2009
JUAN WILLIAMS. "Analysis: Whether genetically modified
crops should be harvested in Third World
countries." Talk of the Nation (NPR) . Points of View Reference
Center. EBSCO. 22 May 2009
"Kenya could reap big by supporting investments in smart
science." standardmedia.co.ke. 3 March 2011
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/politics/InsidePage.php?id=200
0031530&cid=289&story=Kenya%20coul
d%20reap%20big%20by%20supporting%20investments%20in%

20smart%20science.
Lessick, Mira, et al. "Genetically Modified Foods: A Taste of
the Future." MEDSURG Nursing 11.5 (Oct.
2002): 242. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 22 May 2009
Lewontin, Richard. "Genes in the Food!" New York Review of
Books 48.10 (21 June 2007). Online.
http://www.nybooks.com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/art
icles/14298.
Mae-Wan Ho, Joe Cummins, and Peter Saunders. "GM food
nightmare unfolding in the regulatory
sham." Microbial Ecology in Health & Disease 19.2 (June
2007): 66-77. Academic Search Complete.
EBSCO. 22 May 2009
"Should the FDA Adopt a Stricter Policy on Genetically
Engineered Foods? CON." Congressional Digest
80.10 (Mar. 2001): 77. Points of View Reference Center.
EBSCO. 22 May 2009

0031530&cid=289&story=Kenya%20could%20reap%20big%20b
y%20supporting%20investments%20in%20smart%20science
0031530&cid=289&story=Kenya%20could%20reap%20big%20b
y%20supporting%20investments%20in%20smart%20science
http://www.nybooks.com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/art
icles/14298
login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=448
3493&site=pov-live.
"U.S. targeted EU on GM foods: WikiLeaks." cbc.ca. 8 March
2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/03/08/
genetically-modified-food.html.
These essays and any opinions, information or representations

contained therein are the creation of the
particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
EBSCO Information Services.
~~~~~~~~
By Jeffrey Bowman and Marcus Griswold
Marcus Griswold is a PhD researcher in the ecological sciences
with a focus on aquatic ecology. His work
examines the interface between natural and human created
disturbances to ecosystems with a focus on
species as indicators of disturbance.
Copyright of Points of View: Genetically Modified Foods is the
property of Great Neck Publishing and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual
use.
● Result List
● Refine Search
● 1 of 1
Top of Page
● iPhone and Android apps
● EBSCO Connect
…

Point: The Many
Benefits of
Genetically
Modified Foods.
By: Pearson, John,
Points of View:
Genetically
Modified Foods,
6/1/2018
Database:
Points of View
Reference Center
Point: The Many Benefits of
Genetically Modified Foods
Contents
1. A Second Green Revolution
2. History of Genetically
Modified (GM) Crops
3. Breaking Political Resistance
to GM Crops
4. GM Crops and International
Trade
5. Worldwide Support for GM
Foods
6. Environmental Benefits of

Growing GM Crops
7. The Future of GM Foods
8. Ponder This:
9. Bibliography
10. Books
11. Websites
Full Text
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-2
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-3
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-3
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-4

ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-4
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-5
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-5
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-6
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-6
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-7
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-7

ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-8
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-9
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-10
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-11
ZQ%3d%3d#AN0012441302-12
Listen
American Accent Australian
Accent British Accent
Thesis: The use of biotechnology to
genetically enhance food crops is
simply a more efficient extension of
crossbreeding and grafting techniques
that have been used for thousands of
years to produce improved strains of
crops.

Summary: The use of biotechnology to
genetically enhance food crops is
simply a more efficient extension of
crossbreeding and grafting techniques
that have been used for thousands of
years to produce improved strains of
crops. With the rapid advances of
genetic engineering at the end of the
twentieth century, it is now possible to
produce seed crops that not only have
improved taste and nutrition, but also
that resist pests, disease, drought and
flood. This reduces the need for
pesticides and fertilizers, and allows for
low tillage farming that protects the
environment by preserving topsoil and
water resources. Particularly in
developing countries where current crops
often fail, such technology could
dramatically increase yields, helping to
alleviate hunger and disease among
populations now living in poverty.
A Second Green Revolution
There is an unfortunate disparity in the
world at the turn of the twenty-first
https://app-na-readspeaker-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/cgi-
bin/rsent?customerid=5845&lang=en_us&readid=rs_full_text_c
ontainer_title&url=https%3A%2F%2Feds-a-ebscohost-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org%2Feds%2Fdetail%2Fd
etail%3Fvid%3D6%26sid%3D0dd789dd-e063-4d9f-9fce-
775935876b1f%2540sdc-v-

sessmgr03%26bdata%3DJnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU
9c2l0ZQ%253d%253d&speedValue=medium&download=true&a
udiofilename=PointTheManyBenefitsof-PearsonJohn-20180601
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
century: while population growth
continues to soar in developing
countries, the amount of farmland
worldwide is shrinking. Reasons for the
loss of farmland include the depletion of
soils due to poor farming practices and
encroachment of development to meet
the demands of expanding cities and
towns.
There was a burst of food production
from 1950 to 1970, as new equipment
and chemicals (pesticides, herbicides
and fertilizers) became widely available
to farmers in developed countries.
However, increasing gains in food
production brought about by this "green
revolution" in farm technology were
largely exhausted by 1980. In contrast,
world population has continued to
skyrocket, and is expected to expand by
another 50 percent in the next 50 years.
If left unchecked, this trend of shrinking
food resources and growing population
will exacerbate the staggering problems

of hunger and malnourishment that have
caused an estimated 300 million deaths
worldwide since 1970.
However, the application of modern
genetic science to crop breeding could
dramatically change this equation. The
potential for increased yields exists only
in the West, but even more so in
developing countries, many of which
cannot afford to import food and may not
have the infrastructure or government
support necessary to effectively
distribute humanitarian food aid. This
revolution in the makeup of seeds
themselves could create a new green
revolution for developing countries that
were unable to take advantage of
previous technological advances, either
due to the expense of modern farming
equipment or simply because crops were
not hardy enough to endure tough local
growing conditions.
History of Genetically Modified (GM)
Crops
In 1995, the Monsanto Corporation
gained approval for pest-resistant cotton
and potatoes, and for soybeans
designed to be treated with a specific
herbicide. Farmers immediately saw the
benefits from these crops during the

1996 and 1997 growing seasons. In
1998, a newly introduced Monsanto
herbicide-friendly seed corn quickly sold
out before the growing season began. By
2003, more than 70 percent of cotton
and soybeans and about 34 percent of
corn planted in the US were of GM
varieties. The disproportionate amount of
soybean acreage reflects the relatively
high susceptibility of soybeans to
incursion from broadleaf weeds.
Fruit crops have also benefited from
genetic advances, particularly in longer
shelf life. This characteristic would again
be of particular benefit to developing
countries with limited storage and
transportation options. As it stands
today, even after a good harvest, the
crop often spoils before it can be eaten in
such areas.
Breaking Political Resistance to GM
Crops
While reaction to GM crops was
overwhelming positive among American
ZQ%3d%3d#toc

ZQ%3d%3d#toc
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
farmers and generally made little splash
among American consumers, the
European community was quick to raise
questions about food safety. Europe is
the world's largest importer of agricultural
products, along with Japan, and both
officials and consumers in Europe were
already concerned about food supplies
due to the outbreak of mad cow disease
that hit Britain in the mid-1980s.
Today, the majority of corn products sold
in the US are made from genetically
modified grain. This trend of GM crops
taking over their respective markets due
to their superior quality and the simple
fact that Americans have consumed so
many such products, without reporting
any ill effects, is beginning to break down
resistance among consumers from the
traditional grain-importing countries. A
2002 survey of British consumers

showed the percentage unconcerned
about labeling of GM food sources had
increased by 12 percent from 2000
results, up to 41 percent.
GM Crops and International Trade
In May 2003, the US government called
for open trade in GM crops, filing a
complaint with the World Trade
Organization accusing the European
Union (EU) of unfairly restricting imports
of GM grain. The US complaint
challenged the EU to show scientific
evidence of harm from GM crops and
called strict farm-to-fork tracking of GM
foods, including specific consumer
labeling, unnecessary.
Some critics also see the new crops as
an example of corporate hegemony over
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
world agricultural production, as GM
crops have mainly been engineered by
large multinational corporations. This
political argument against the
introduction of GM crops in areas such
as Africa could be nullified by the
creation of corporate partnerships with

local farmers and governments to
develop new seeds. International groups
such as the World Bank and other
non-profit organizations could take a
role in distributing the seeds in poor
countries.
This private-public partnership is now
coming to pass with golden rice -- a
variety of rice that was developed with
funding from the EU, the Swiss
government, the Rockefeller Foundation,
and drug maker AstraZeneca. The rice
contains beta-carotene, which the human
body converts to vitamin-A. In the
poorest areas of Asia, vitamin-A
deficiency is related to death or
blindness among more than one million
children annually.
Worldwide Support for GM Foods
Many of the countries that could most
benefit from GM crops have little
influence in the court of world opinion.
One notable exception was seen in a
2000 Washington Post editorial by
Hassan Adamu, Nigeria's minister of
agricultural and rural development.
Adamu quoted African scientist Florence
Wambugu, writing that "in Africa, GM
food could almost literally weed out
poverty." Adamu went on to point out
that while more affluent countries have
the luxury of arguing the finer points of
food production, many African countries

ZQ%3d%3d#toc
face poor growing conditions that thwart
any attempts to grow traditional crops.
Many respected international
organizations have come out in support
of GM foods. The World Health
Organization (WHO) said that GM crops
are "making major improvements in both
food quality and nutrition." The United
Nations' Economic Commission for
Africa (ECA) reported that GM crops
could help the continent move toward
sustainable development and cited the
success of GM corn and cotton crops in
South Africa and Egypt.
A 2000 American Medical Association
(AMA) report discounted the danger of
GM foods, saying that the risks
associated with such crops are not
substantially different than those
produced by traditional breeding
methods. The report recommended that
regulation of crops be guided by the
plant itself -- its characteristics and use --
not by breeding techniques. It went on to
say that special labeling of foods made
from GM crops was scientifically

unjustified.
Ismail Serageldin, speaking on behalf of
the World Bank, called the use of GM
crops "crucial" to developing countries in
the twenty-first century. He said such
crops "could be a tremendous help in
meeting the challenge of feeding an
additional three billion human beings, 95
percent of them in the poor developing
countries, on the same amount of land
and water currently available."
Environmental Benefits of Growing
GM Crops
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
The use of GM crops has already had a
substantial positive impact on the
environment in the US. A National
Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
study estimates a total reduction in
pesticide use of 46 million pounds in
2001, thanks to GM crops.

In developing countries, efforts to meet
the growing demand for food will
probably result in further exhaustion of
existing farmland, leading farmers to cut
down more forest acreage in a search for
fertile soils. GM crops offer an alternative
to this environmental catastrophe by
providing increased yields from existing
farmlands.
The Future of GM Foods
GM foods even hold the potential to
make foods easier to digest and free of
allergens. Monsanto is already working
on strains of peanuts that would at least
reduce the incidence of allergic
reactions, now a deadly threat to the
most sensitive individuals. Research on
wheat is underway to eliminate the
portion of the protein gluten that is now
basically indigestible by as many as one
in 250 in the US.
GM crops could eventually sustain the
soil, even as they take nourishment from
it at the same time. While commonsense
precautions are warranted in the
development of new plants, as with any
new food-related product, the benefits
of applying genetic science to crop
production are overwhelming positive.

ZQ%3d%3d#toc
Ponder This:
1. Outline the major benefits of
genetically modified food crops cited
by the author.
● 2. For which benefit does the
author make the most
convincing argument?
Explain.
● 3. For which benefit does the
author make the least
convincing argument?
Explain.
● 4. How do the views of EU
leaders on genetically
modified food crops differ
from those of leaders of less
affluent nations?
● 5. In the dispute between the
EU and US over the safety of
genetically modified food
crops, should the burden lie
with the US to prove safety or
the EU to prove harm?
Discuss.
Bibliography

Books
Degregori, Thomas R. Bountiful Harvest:
Technology, Food Safety, and the
Environment. Washington, DC: Cato
Institute, 2002.
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
ZQ%3d%3d#toc
Pinstrup-Andersen, Per and Ebbe
Schioler. Seeds of Contention: World
Hunger and the Global Controversy Over
GM (Genetically Modified) Crops.
Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute, 2001.
Lambrecht, Bill. Dinner at the New Gene
Cafe: How Genetic Engineering Is
Changing What We Eat, How We Live,
and the Global Politics of Food. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 2002.
Charles, Daniel. Lords of the Harvest:
Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of
Food. New York: Perseus Publishing,
2002.

Websites
AgBioWorld Foundation.
http://www.agbioworld.org/.
"Transgenic Crops. An Introduction and
Resource Guide." Colorado State
University Center for Life Sciences, 12
August, 2003,
http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesci
ences/TransgenicCrops/.
Rehberg, Denny. "GM foods can help
feed world." Montana Forum. 18 August
2003.
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/
2003/08/17/build/ag/gm-op.php?nnn=6.
"Genetically Improved Foods." Center
for Consumer Freedom. 18 August 2003.
http://www.agbioworld.org/
http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrop
s/
http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrop
s/
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/08/17/build/ag/gm
-op.php?nnn=6
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/08/17/build/ag/gm
-op.php?nnn=6
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/issue
page%5Ffoodtech%5Fbio.cfm.

"GM food safety fear 'based on
distortion'." NewScientist.com. 18 August
2003.
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/g
m/gm.jsp?id=ns99993874.
"Report 10 of the Council on Scientific
Affairs (I-2000): Genetically Modified
Crops and Foods." The American
Medical Association. 12 August 2003.
http://www.ama-assn.org.chamberlainuni
versity.idm.oclc.org/ama/pub/article/2036
-3604.html.
"'Frankenfood' Frenzy." Reason Online.
18 August 2003.
http://reason.com/bi/bi-gmf.shtml.
● These essays and any
opinions, information or
representations contained
therein are the creation of the
particular author and do not
necessarily reflect the opinion
of EBSCO Information
Services.
~~~~~~~~
By John Pearson
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/issuepage_foodtech_bio.cfm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/issuepage_foodtech_bio.cfm
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=ns999938

74
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=ns999938
74
http://www.ama-
assn.org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/ama/pub/article/20
36-3604.html
http://www.ama-
36-3604.html
http://www.ama-
36-3604.html
http://reason.com/bi/bi-gmf.shtml
Copyright of Points of View: Genetically
Modified Foods is the property of Great
Neck Publishing and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
● Result List
● Refine Search
● 1 of 63
oogle Drive
dd to folder
rint
mail
ave
xport

ZQ%3d%3d#
ZQ%3d%3d#
ZQ%3d%3d#
ZQ%3d%3d#
ZQ%3d%3d#
ZQ%3d%3d#
reate Note
ermalink

Top of Page
● iPhone and Android apps
● EBSCO Connect
● Privacy Policy
● A/B Testing
● Terms of Use
● Copyright
● Cookie Policy
● Contact Us
powered by EBSCOhost
© 2020 EBSCO Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.
ZQ%3d%3d#
ZQ%3d%3d#
https://connect-ebsco-com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/
https://www-ebsco-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/company/privacy-
policy
https://www-ebsco-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/conversion-testing-
statement
https://www-ebsco-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/terms-of-use

https://www-ebsco-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/terms-of-use
https://www-ebsco-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/cookie-policy
https://support-ebscohost-
com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/contact/index.php
Title in Upper and Lower Case
Your Name
Chamberlain College of Nursing
Course Number: Course Name
Term Month and Year
Running head: TYPE SHORT TITLE IN ALL CAPS 1
TYPE SHORT TITLE IN ALL CAPS 2
Title of your Paper in Upper and Lower Case (Centered, not
Bold)
Type your introduction here and remove the instructions.. The
introduction should begin with an attention grabber and end
with your working thesis statement. Remember to employ an
objective tone by applying only 3rd person point of view (no
1st: I, me, my, we, our, us, mine) or 2nd: you, your person point
of view).
Context
Begin to type the body of your paper here. Use as many
paragraphs as needed to cover the content appropriately. As
noted in the Lecture’s outline, the context section should
include potential qualifiers, and definitions. It is essentially

background information that provides your audience with the
context needed to understand your claim.
1st Pro-Point
Begin with a topic sentence written in your own words that
presents your grounds. Next, apply the evidence/warrant.
Signal phrases are highly recommended to introduce new
sources (ex: According to Dr. John Smith, head physician at the
Mayo Clinic…). Cite your sources in APA format via
parenthetical citations. Follow through with a few sentences
examining the evidence and connecting it back to your main
point. Strive for a minimum of 5 developed sentences in a
college level paragraph. Remember to refer back to the outline
in our Week 2 Lesson if you need to review the structure of the
paper.
Repeat this process for your 2nd and 3rd Pro-Points, dedicating
a paragraph to each.
Conclusion
Papers should end with a conclusion. Unpack your thesis (do
not copy/paste it) and apply a concluding technique. It should
be concise and contain no new detail. No matter how much
space remains on the page, the references always start on a
separate page.
References (centered, not bold)
Type your references in alphabetical order here using hanging
indents. See your APA Manual and the resources in your APA
folder in Course Resources for reference formatting.

Accessibility Information and Tips Title Genetically Modi.docx

Accessibility Information and Tips Title Genetically Modi.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Accessibility Information and Tips Title Genetically Modi.docx

Similar to Accessibility Information and Tips Title Genetically Modi.docx (9)

More from ronak56

More from ronak56 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Accessibility Information and Tips Title Genetically Modi.docx