The main argument of the paper defended the safety of genetically modified organisms to the health of animals and people. Like many things, genetic modification may have the potential to cause harm, but evaluations and testing prevent any dangerous foods from going on the market. Genetic modification could also bring many benefits. These include the creation of healthier and cheaper crops. Overall, the use of GM foods has the same amount of risk involved as that of conventionally grown foods. I used these facts in order to create a persuasive argument. Someone would find the argument persuasive because of the data I used to back my point. I cited the results from different studies to show how GMOs affected animals. Through the information that I presented, readers could find factual reasons to support genetic modification. I wanted to stay away from a emotional approach regarding this topic. I felt that readers initially against the argument would respond more to a factual based argument than an emotional one. People do not want to take risks regarding their food, which leads to their understandable concern. …show more content…
However, evidence does not show much support for the “toxicity” of genetically modified crops. Companies, independent scientists, and organizations have done thousands of studies, some of which I cited in my paper, in search any health risks in GMOs. Not only that, many major scientific and medical organizations have supported GMO, and the billions of livestock consuming them show no negative effects. My paper contains well researched evidence in order to persuade others. However, the weakest part of the argument in my opinion, may not have done this as well. This would consist of the section in which I explain Gilles-Éric Séralini faulty tests. Here, the original intention of showing how feeding test seldom show negative results, but misinterpretation of this as an attempt to simply discredit the other side of the argument could occur. The majority of people have some knowledge about genetically modified organisms. However, in recent times, the subject has gotten less attention as it may have gotten in the past. Many other political and environmental subjects have taken priority of the public’s interest. Despite this, genetic modification still shows prominent relevance, especially in scientific and medical communities. The wide amount of people affected by GMOs causes this relevance. Since everyone eats food, the argument can affect everyone in a sense. To specify, however, the main audience consist of those debating whether they should consume genetically modified foods or not. The argument that defends genetically modified organism benefits the many. Cheaper, and more nutritional food can benefit many people. Not only that, the use of GM crops could aid in the decrease of world hunger and could help prevent disease. No major consequences come from the central argument of the toxicity of genetically modified crops to human health. However, when looking at the bigger picture, the use of genetically modified crops could lead to struggling small farmers. When not