Genetically Modified Foods Argumentative Analysis

When considering genetically modified (GM) organisms with the likes of its organic counterpart on a macroscopic view, there is almost no difference between the natural occurring organism and the GM organism. In contrast, the microscopic view, which takes into consideration factors like DNA sequences and other cellular components, provides subtle differences between genetically modified organisms and naturally occurring organisms. One subfield of GM organisms that gets constant recognition is genetically modified foods. There is only one question: how safe are genetically modified foods to eat? Henry Miller and Gregory Conko say that GM foods are safe for the consumer and better for the environment (2006, 232). Jeffery Smith argues that genetically modified foods put the health of individuals at risk and should no longer fall into the hands of the consumer (2007, 240). After taking into consideration arguments of both sides of the topic, Miller and Conko effectively make the case for why genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Miller and Conko start their argument by citing just how important food safety is to the consumer. While acknowledging that technology has paved the way for food cultivators to incorporate GM organics …show more content…
Henry Miller and Gregory Conko make an effective argument through innovations made by GM crop technology on why they are safe to eat. While Jeffery Smith remains highly critical of the genetically modified food movement, he falls short of convincing his audience on why GM foods should be abandoned entirely. Smith’s argument cites probabilities and unclear associations with his major push against GM foods, which are the adverse health risks to humans and other animals. Miller and Conko surpass the inaccuracies of James Smith’s argument, and provide merit to why GM foods are safe to