The issue of whether or not we should be feeding as well as pushing genetically modified crops on the thousands if not millions of human beings that face starvation, is a very critical and growing topic that we all face across the world. Many scientists suggest that these crops offer tons of benefits and promised that the crop is poised to provide a large increase in the yield that farmers bring in (which includes a growth in income). In her publication entitled “Broken Promises” in May 2015 Taarini Chopra of Alive Publishing Group Inc. claims that this idea of using Genetically Modified or Engineered crops to solve world starvation creates more problems than it does solutions. She argues that the idea “ignores the root problem that world hunger
…show more content…
Although at times throughout her article she makes statements and does not follow up or explain how and why that is the way it is. One example is “Monsanto and Dow have developed GM crops that are tolerant to the older herbicides.” (Chopra 65). Then goes onto say “these problems will only make the problem worse.” (Chopra 65). This is ineffective because she does not provide any data, research, or study that backs up her comment. However throughout her article other than that miniscule example she is very consistent in providing evidence and showing how her explanation ties into her thesis. For example a positive explanation is how she states that many farmers still farm the traditional way to show to the reader that it is still possible to have a non GM foods diet. She follows that by saying to “Read labels as there’s also some labeling of non-GM foods. Look for the Non-GMO Project Verified label on packaged foods” (Chopra 64). Another explanation is how “The effects of these GM cotton failures on small farmers made it worse by the fact that the seeds, which are patented, cost a lot more than conventional and traditional seeds” (Chopra 64) then follows up with specific data stating that these GM seeds are “anywhere from three to eight times as much as the cost of conventional hybrid seed’ (Chopra 64) not only that her but her explanations are strategically placed right after …show more content…
As you go farther in the article however we find that she gets off track going into the explanation that Monsanto (the leading producer of these seeds) uses a herbicide that negatively effects the crops. The “herbicide called “Roundup,” in Canada and in the US, has led to the emergence of “superweeds” that are resistant to glyphosate” (Chopra 65) and how these seeds and crops are exposed “with many different agricultural chemicals, exposure to 2,4-D has been linked to a number of serious health problems” (Chopra 66). Which although is important and shows why farmers should stop using these seeds has nothing to do with providing a solution to world hunger, how to provide a way to get more land to third world countries, or even how to get farmers to stop using these seeds. Overall this weakens the aim of the article because it distracts the reader from the overall focus and doesn’t show a tie on
Although at times throughout her article she makes statements and does not follow up or explain how and why that is the way it is. One example is “Monsanto and Dow have developed GM crops that are tolerant to the older herbicides.” (Chopra 65). Then goes onto say “these problems will only make the problem worse.” (Chopra 65). This is ineffective because she does not provide any data, research, or study that backs up her comment. However throughout her article other than that miniscule example she is very consistent in providing evidence and showing how her explanation ties into her thesis. For example a positive explanation is how she states that many farmers still farm the traditional way to show to the reader that it is still possible to have a non GM foods diet. She follows that by saying to “Read labels as there’s also some labeling of non-GM foods. Look for the Non-GMO Project Verified label on packaged foods” (Chopra 64). Another explanation is how “The effects of these GM cotton failures on small farmers made it worse by the fact that the seeds, which are patented, cost a lot more than conventional and traditional seeds” (Chopra 64) then follows up with specific data stating that these GM seeds are “anywhere from three to eight times as much as the cost of conventional hybrid seed’ (Chopra 64) not only that her but her explanations are strategically placed right after …show more content…
As you go farther in the article however we find that she gets off track going into the explanation that Monsanto (the leading producer of these seeds) uses a herbicide that negatively effects the crops. The “herbicide called “Roundup,” in Canada and in the US, has led to the emergence of “superweeds” that are resistant to glyphosate” (Chopra 65) and how these seeds and crops are exposed “with many different agricultural chemicals, exposure to 2,4-D has been linked to a number of serious health problems” (Chopra 66). Which although is important and shows why farmers should stop using these seeds has nothing to do with providing a solution to world hunger, how to provide a way to get more land to third world countries, or even how to get farmers to stop using these seeds. Overall this weakens the aim of the article because it distracts the reader from the overall focus and doesn’t show a tie on