In her article, Carole Bartolotto argues that existing scientific institutions deliberately turn a blind eye to the studies which can highlight the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In my opinion, the author raises a very important question because she shows that some research articles have been retracted from scientific journals without any proper justification (Bartolotto par. 1). I agree with the author who notes that the adverse effects of GMOs should be examined in greater detail because many existing studies can be funded by companies that rely on GMOs. Therefore, in this case, there can be a significant conflict of interest that can undermine the validity of the findings. This is one of the main problems that should be taken into account. In contrast, Dan Charles notes that even alleged risks of GMOs are relatively small in comparison with existing agricultural practices such as draining wetlands (Charles par. 19). I think that this argument should also be considered because too much attention is paid to the hypothetical dangers of GMOs; nevertheless, it can be a valuable alternative to conventional agricultural methods that can pose a threat to the environment. In turn, Carey Gillam tries to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of GMOs more impartially. For instance, the author notes that this approach has been important for reducing the use of insecticides, but in many cases, farmers have to use more herbicides (Gillam par. 12). In my opinion, the assessment approach advocated by this author is more productive. In particular, it enables researchers to identify the drawbacks and benefits of GMOs.
In my opinion, the use of GMOs should be evaluated from economic and social viewpoints; for instance, it can be critical for protecting food security in various developed countries. In particular, one can speak about those states located in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nevertheless, it is important to conduct well-designed studies that can demonstrate whether existing GMOs do produce any long-term effects on the health of consumers.
I have chosen to include the post written by Renee Cho who carefully examines the benefits and drawbacks of GMOs. Moreover, the author discusses possible solutions to the hypothetical risks of GMOs. In particular, the writer advocates the need for labeling GMO products (Cho par. 1). It is a very useful strategy because consumers should be able to distinguish GMO products from others. Furthermore, I have chosen a journal article written by Abbie Goldbas who discusses the main risks that can be associated with GMOs (20). This article is beneficial because it shows the extent to which the concerns of many GMO critics are justified.
Bartolotto. Carole. “The Anti-Science Behavior of GMO Proponents.”Huff Post. 2014. Web.
Charles, Dan. “A Green-Movement Website Shakes Up The Debate Over GMOs.” NPR. 2014. Web.
Cho, Renee. “The Intensifying Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods.” State of the Planet. 2013. Web.
Gillam, Carey. “U.S. GMO crops show mix of benefits, concerns – USDA report.” Reutors. 2014. Web.
Goldbas, Abbie. “Gmos: What Are They?… Genetically Modified Organisms.” International Journal Of Childbirth Education 29.3 (2014): 20-24.