There are many types of rice, such as brown rice, sticky rice, and long-grain rice. They are all good for the human need, but what about the “Golden Rice”? In “Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?”, by John Robbins, the author explains how genetically engineered rice has failed to help the world hunger, and what he has discovered as the real purpose of Monsanto. At the beginning Robbins has used reliable sources to inform what was the “golden rice,” and he has well explained the advantage and disadvantage throughout the paragraphs. He slowly revealed the dark side of the Monsanto by telling readers more details about the “Technology Protection System.” At the end of the article, Robbins stated that he does not believe that GMOs will help end world
…show more content…
Robbins has point out that golden rice can only grow in the soil has heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides. The golden rice requires large amounts of water, but most of the places that has problem with Vitamin A cannot provided with the huge need of water. “An eleven-year-old boy would have to eat twenty-seven bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin” (Robbins, 2011, par.11). He presents a shock information that detailed how golden rice does not work in theory due to the difficult for people to absorb Vitamin A. Based on the textual evidence the article it is pointless for people to spend money and energy on golden rice. Robbins avoid the bias by said, “I’m sure that given enough time and enough money, some viable genetically modifies (GM) crops could be developed that contain more nutrients or have higher yields” (Robbins, 2011, …show more content…
He well present of how ads are “sugar-coat” showing all the positive side of the produce, but there are always going to be negative side of the produce that most people did not look deep into. Readers can understand the idea better by relate the experience with ads through their life, such as a waterproof smart phone ad would never point out that fact it can only been in water for so long. He uses a neutral tone at the beginning, but it got changed in the later article, Robbins show the tone of disappointment and the feeling of betray of the golden rice. He did a great job to inform the readers and stated his idea at the end without
Robbins has point out that golden rice can only grow in the soil has heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides. The golden rice requires large amounts of water, but most of the places that has problem with Vitamin A cannot provided with the huge need of water. “An eleven-year-old boy would have to eat twenty-seven bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin” (Robbins, 2011, par.11). He presents a shock information that detailed how golden rice does not work in theory due to the difficult for people to absorb Vitamin A. Based on the textual evidence the article it is pointless for people to spend money and energy on golden rice. Robbins avoid the bias by said, “I’m sure that given enough time and enough money, some viable genetically modifies (GM) crops could be developed that contain more nutrients or have higher yields” (Robbins, 2011, …show more content…
He well present of how ads are “sugar-coat” showing all the positive side of the produce, but there are always going to be negative side of the produce that most people did not look deep into. Readers can understand the idea better by relate the experience with ads through their life, such as a waterproof smart phone ad would never point out that fact it can only been in water for so long. He uses a neutral tone at the beginning, but it got changed in the later article, Robbins show the tone of disappointment and the feeling of betray of the golden rice. He did a great job to inform the readers and stated his idea at the end without