In this paper I discuss the debate over the use of genetically modified organisms to replace conventional food production techniques, and the safety of the foods produced. In 2014, the PEW Research Center conducted a survey of the general public and reported that 57% of individuals believed it unsafe to consume genetically modified foods, 25% considered it safe, and 6% either did not know or did not answer. In sharp contrast to this statistic, when asked the same question, 88% of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science considered genetically modified foods to be safe. To give public opinion credit, “genetically modified organism” and “genetically engineered” are relatively new terms. Genetically engineered crops
…show more content…
The argument against GMOs is outdated. Furthermore, it appears the argument is based on complete ignorance of the extensive scientific research done on the subject. The main premise of the anti-GMO argument has the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. This premise claims that because we cannot know everything there is to know about the consequences of GMOs, they are bad and probably unsafe. However, scientists around the world have done considerable research and have yet to find any alarming risks. There is possibility for scientists to one day in the future discover that there is a consequence to using GMOs, however, as of now they’re safe and there is empirical data to prove it. It is ineffective assume something is unsafe because we cannot omnisciently know the everlasting effects of an object. Furthermore, the second premise of the argument is disproved by the AAAS’s statement and the EFSA’s website saying that new proteins which could carry allergens are heavily tested before being approved and continuously tested after approval. Therefore, the one case that caused concern about this issue has been dealt with and is addressed and regulated by the scientific community. For these reasons, I find the anti-GMO argument to be …show more content…
This consensus is important to consider when forming opinions about any debate between public opinion and science. It is possible for scientists to have incoherent beliefs throughout a subject. When this occurs it’s is difficult to wholeheartedly agree with a specific view, as one may be just as warranted, but be in objection to the prior. However, in the matter of the health risks of GMOs, because the major scientific organizations around the world are in agreement, it is not only hard, but also unsubstantiated to look in the face of peer-reviewed research and disagree with their
The argument against GMOs is outdated. Furthermore, it appears the argument is based on complete ignorance of the extensive scientific research done on the subject. The main premise of the anti-GMO argument has the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. This premise claims that because we cannot know everything there is to know about the consequences of GMOs, they are bad and probably unsafe. However, scientists around the world have done considerable research and have yet to find any alarming risks. There is possibility for scientists to one day in the future discover that there is a consequence to using GMOs, however, as of now they’re safe and there is empirical data to prove it. It is ineffective assume something is unsafe because we cannot omnisciently know the everlasting effects of an object. Furthermore, the second premise of the argument is disproved by the AAAS’s statement and the EFSA’s website saying that new proteins which could carry allergens are heavily tested before being approved and continuously tested after approval. Therefore, the one case that caused concern about this issue has been dealt with and is addressed and regulated by the scientific community. For these reasons, I find the anti-GMO argument to be …show more content…
This consensus is important to consider when forming opinions about any debate between public opinion and science. It is possible for scientists to have incoherent beliefs throughout a subject. When this occurs it’s is difficult to wholeheartedly agree with a specific view, as one may be just as warranted, but be in objection to the prior. However, in the matter of the health risks of GMOs, because the major scientific organizations around the world are in agreement, it is not only hard, but also unsubstantiated to look in the face of peer-reviewed research and disagree with their