USA Today is a well known and widely trusted resource and that is why I am using their article. This article discusses the debate on whether or not products with genetically modified organisms should be labeled. Genetically modified organisms or GMO's are defined by the FDA as "genetic modification practices that utilize modern biotechnology. In this process, scientists make targeted changes to a plant’s genetic makeup to give the plant a new desirable trait. " Thus these genetically modified organisms are GMO's. The article titled, "General Mills to label GMOs on Products Across the Country" is written by Hadley Malcolm. In the article she discusses why this labeling by General Mills and other places is occurring. From this article I can infer the author believes GMO's are safe.
Evidence:
The reason I can infer that she agrees that GMO's are safe is because she only uses quotes that support the idea that GMO's are safe. For example she writes that, "Genetically engineered foods, like corn and soybeans, have been part of the U.S. food supply since the 1990s and the Food and Drug Administration says they are safe to eat." This alone proves my inference is right because she uses the Food and Drug Adminstration to back her idea and doesn't mention a counter idea to her assertion. She also states that, " Some advocacy groups say there hasn't been sufficient testing to determine whether GMOs pose a health risk." Again this is another quote backing up her notion that GMO'S are safe but, she never mentions anything that would counter her notion.
Fallacies:
Again similar to an article in an earlier post this article just doesn't have enough information. This article becomes full of fallacies when terms are used that are not clearly or fully explained. Browne and Keeley describe a fallacy called the Equivocation fallacy which occurs when a key word or phrase is used with two or more meanings in an argument such
that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are
recognized.The word genetically modified organism is the basis for this articles conclusion yet is never defined. The problem being GMO's are defined differently depending on which organization or scientists are using it. There are mulltiple definitions that describe GMO's but the author never lets the reader know which definition of GMO she is referring to. This important to understanding why or why not she may oppose the use of GMO's.
My Conclusions:
Personally, I do not know enough about GMO's to decide whether of not they are safe. It also doesn't help that the arguments for and against GMO's are very strong. However I am leaning towards believing GMO's are safe only because I had a conversation with a food scientist from Rutgers University. Perhaps after more research is published and criticized by other respected scholars, I will have more of a complete understanding of GMO's and be able actually choose a side on this issues. Another reason my views are conflicted is because I am personally involved with the farming and ranching community and the views on GMO's are 50/ 50 but, leaning towards the idea that organic is the best way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment