Genetically modified foods are food products which have been altered so that the DNA of one species has been extricated and artificially forced into said food product. There is an utmost certainty of a ubiquitous likelihood for the rise of GM crops gracing grocery stores and supermarkets. With that in mind, it is not spoken about enough.
Pro-GMO proponents such as sites and large biotech companies argue that there is not enough evidence to prove that it is unsafe. In Slate¬- an online current affairs, politics and culture magazine, author William Saletan explains that most people do not know enough of the research behind GMOs to come to the conclusion that it is unsafe. The population is generally misinformed- not being aware of triumphs in the pro-GMO struggle such as the evidence behind what is said to be the “Papaya Triumph.” The papaya crop was made to be immune from the Ringspot virus by transferring a gene from a harmless part of the virus- the coat protein- to the papaya’s DNA. This is important as it saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from the crop being destroyed.
Ironically, an important factor pertaining to the argument against GMOs is based on the fact that not enough research has been done to prove that it is, in fact, safe. For example, William Saletan references Chipotle- as a …show more content…
She cites the problem behind that to be mainly the fault of the EU and other non-governmental organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. John Robbins in his article explains the arguments’ falsifiability being that Golden Rice did in fact not produce enough beta-carotene. He although, fails to indicate that neither do Non-GMO alternatives as does Saletan. Alternately, Baggott explains that it has been altered so it now produces it
Pro-GMO proponents such as sites and large biotech companies argue that there is not enough evidence to prove that it is unsafe. In Slate¬- an online current affairs, politics and culture magazine, author William Saletan explains that most people do not know enough of the research behind GMOs to come to the conclusion that it is unsafe. The population is generally misinformed- not being aware of triumphs in the pro-GMO struggle such as the evidence behind what is said to be the “Papaya Triumph.” The papaya crop was made to be immune from the Ringspot virus by transferring a gene from a harmless part of the virus- the coat protein- to the papaya’s DNA. This is important as it saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from the crop being destroyed.
Ironically, an important factor pertaining to the argument against GMOs is based on the fact that not enough research has been done to prove that it is, in fact, safe. For example, William Saletan references Chipotle- as a …show more content…
She cites the problem behind that to be mainly the fault of the EU and other non-governmental organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. John Robbins in his article explains the arguments’ falsifiability being that Golden Rice did in fact not produce enough beta-carotene. He although, fails to indicate that neither do Non-GMO alternatives as does Saletan. Alternately, Baggott explains that it has been altered so it now produces it