For our final paper I decided to stick with the same topic I worked on for the previous paper. I will continue to discuss GMOs. For this paper I’m going to target questions that discuss the safety of GMOs and questions that discuss why GMOs aren’t labeled. GMOs are a hot topic in our modern day. In this paper I’m going to take a stance that is against GMO, as I believe they should be banned entirely. Many people are beginning to shift away from GMOs. The main reason I chose this stance is because I feel like we should all know what is in our food. Since GMOs aren’t labeled, it leads me to question what exactly it is that we are eating. After incidences involving Subway and Krafts, I was persuaded against GMOs. Subway, for instance, altered their bread in order for it to have a longer shelf life. This stance is understandable from a economic standpoint. However, once I found out that the bread was made of elements that can be found in yoga-matts (from a health standpoint) I was completely turned away. This is a prime example of a big company that would do anything in order to make money. I feel like if a company like Subway would do this to their own consumers, then why wouldn’t other big companies do the same? My intended audience for this assignment is misinformed consumers. I’m going to take a more emotional route for this paper as I want to engage my audience emotionally. I feel that the audience would be easy to persuade after stating specific examples (such as the incident with Subway). If you ask the common person what a GMO is they would most likely not know. I feel that the common person would side against GMOs after appealing emotionally with them. I will address some studies that support GMOs, in order to testify against them with claims of my own and of sources. Pro GMO writers, like Jon Entine, would say that GMOs are good for society economically and he would state that there is no concrete research to prove against the health defects of them. Not all GMOs are bad for you, but how could there be any excuse for consumers (for example the consumers of Subway) to unknowingly eat substances found in a yoga-matt. In what way is eating a yoga-matt healthy? It is also believed that GMOs lead to some forms of cancers and I will definitely analyze the health defects frequently in my paper.

So far I’m pretty confident that I’m sticking with the topic of GMOs. I’m debating if I should base my essay off of GMO labeling or if I should continue to discuss the safety of GMOs and choose a side. I don’t really have any questions (other than the one previously stated) in regards to the paper. As of now, I feel as if I have a good understanding on the assignment for the paper.

This article is very biased towards the safety for genetically modified organisms. He attacks numerous claims that state that genetically modified foods cause health problems. He attacks many writers that are against genetically modified foods, especially Jeffrey Smith. Entine refutes Smith’s claim, “Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverse or unexplained effects,” he writes. “But we were not supposed to know about these problems…the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them.” Overall, the article is very pro genetically modified foods and their safety.

In Jon Entine’s article, “The Debate About GMO Safety is Over, Thanks to a New Trillion- Meal Study”, Entine is very biased towards genetically modified organisms as he makes his claim that they are completely safe. He attacks numerous claims that state that genetically modified foods cause health problems. He attacks writers that are against genetically modified foods, especially Jeffrey Smith. Entine refutes Smith’s claim, “Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverse or unexplained effects,” he writes. “But we were not supposed to know about these problems…the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them.” Entine quotes Smith in order to immediately testify against his claims. Entine goes on to state that there are no trustworthy claims towards the health defects of GMOs because from a logical standpoint animals consume 70-90 percent of GMO crops and because of this, if GMOs were not safe, farms around the world would be littered with dead and sick animals. Overall, the article is very pro genetically modified foods and their safety.

Entine, Jon. “The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study.” Forbes. Forbes, 17 September 2014. Web. 6 November 2014.