Question
analyzing informational texts to write a five paragraph essay analyzing the two articles about genetically modified fish. The body of your essay should address the following:
Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World
Question 1
What is the author’s point of view?
Question 2
Now read this excerpt from Zohar’s article.
The public should not be scared by the term “genetic engineering.” This powerful platform requires making only relatively minor and very targeted modifications to the animal genome, compared, for example, with selective breeding and domestication, where we manipulate many genes over generations without knowing exactly what is altered.
We have all been eating selectively bred fish, chicken, beef and other animals for many years without thinking twice about it. The AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon has only one extra copy of a fish gene inserted into its genome. This one addition, while enhancing the hormones of the growth axis in fish, operates within the fish's physiological range. And these are fish hormones that have no effect on the human consumer.
The AquAdvantage salmon is no different from conventional farmed salmon in its composition and health benefits, and the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that it is safe for people to eat.
What conflicting point of view does Zohar hint at? How does the author refute it?
Question 3
How well does Zohar refute the conflicting viewpoint?
Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World
Question 1
What is the author’s point of view?
Question 2
Now read this excerpt from Zohar’s article.
The public should not be scared by the term “genetic engineering.” This powerful platform requires making only relatively minor and very targeted modifications to the animal genome, compared, for example, with selective breeding and domestication, where we manipulate many genes over generations without knowing exactly what is altered.
We have all been eating selectively bred fish, chicken, beef and other animals for many years without thinking twice about it. The AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon has only one extra copy of a fish gene inserted into its genome. This one addition, while enhancing the hormones of the growth axis in fish, operates within the fish's physiological range. And these are fish hormones that have no effect on the human consumer.
The AquAdvantage salmon is no different from conventional farmed salmon in its composition and health benefits, and the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that it is safe for people to eat.
What conflicting point of view does Zohar hint at? How does the author refute it?
Question 3
How well does Zohar refute the conflicting viewpoint?
Answers
GPT-4o mini
**Title: Analyzing Perspectives on Genetically Modified Salmon**
**Introduction**
The emergence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has stirred considerable debate, particularly in the field of agriculture and aquaculture. In two articles discussing genetically modified salmon, differing viewpoints emerge regarding the safety, ethics, and potential impact of these fish on food security. The essay primarily focuses on the article “Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World” by Zohar, which presents a positive view on genetically modified salmon, namely the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon. Zohar argues that the technologies used in creating genetically modified organisms are not only safe but also necessary for addressing food shortages in the world. This exposition examines Zohar's viewpoint, the conflicting perspectives alluded to in his arguments, and the efficacy of his refutation of those positions.
**Author's Point of View**
Zohar’s article advocates for the acceptance and utilization of genetically modified salmon as a solution to global food security challenges. He maintains that the modifications made to the AquAdvantage salmon—specifically the insertion of an additional fish gene—are minimal and targeted compared to traditional methods of selective breeding. His point of view underscores the need for innovative solutions in food production, particularly in the face of increasing population and diminishing resources. Zohar seeks to reassure the public that genetically engineered products, particularly the AquAdvantage salmon, can contribute positively to feeding the world without compromising health or safety.
**Conflicting Viewpoint and Refutation**
In the excerpt provided, Zohar indirectly references the fear and skepticism surrounding genetic engineering. Many consumers, influenced by negative media portrayals and concerns over food safety, may be apprehensive about eating genetically modified products. Zohar counters this by explaining the precision of genetic modifications compared to traditional breeding methods, which are less controlled and more unpredictable. He emphasizes that the changes implemented in the AquAdvantage salmon do not alter its health benefits or biological composition, presenting the Food and Drug Administration’s endorsement of its safety as a crucial piece of evidence. By framing genetic modification as a “powerful platform” that is meticulously regulated, Zohar aims to diminish the stigma attached to the term “genetic engineering.”
**Effectiveness of the Refutation**
Zohar's refutation is effective on several levels. First, he successfully addresses the common fears associated with GMOs by providing a scientific basis for understanding genetic manipulation. By comparing genetic modifications to the longstanding practice of selective breeding, he positions GMOs as a more precise and reliable method of enhancing food production. Additionally, referencing the FDA’s approval adds an authoritative voice to his argument, reinforcing the notion that genetically modified salmon is not just safe, but beneficial. However, some critics might argue that relying solely on governmental endorsements does not adequately address potential long-term ecological impacts, nor does it engage with ethical considerations regarding consumer autonomy and transparency in the food supply. While Zohar makes compelling points, the effectiveness of his argument could be strengthened by acknowledging these broader concerns.
**Conclusion**
In conclusion, Zohar's article on genetically modified salmon presents a supportive and optimistic view of genetic engineering as a necessary innovation for addressing food security. By addressing common fears and providing scientific validation, he effectively promotes the AquAdvantage salmon as a safe and valuable addition to our food sources. However, acknowledging the broader implications of genetic modification, including ecological and ethical considerations, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding this contentious issue. As society grapples with the future of food production, it is crucial that discussions about GMOs remain well-informed and balanced, considering both the potential benefits and risks involved.
**Introduction**
The emergence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has stirred considerable debate, particularly in the field of agriculture and aquaculture. In two articles discussing genetically modified salmon, differing viewpoints emerge regarding the safety, ethics, and potential impact of these fish on food security. The essay primarily focuses on the article “Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World” by Zohar, which presents a positive view on genetically modified salmon, namely the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon. Zohar argues that the technologies used in creating genetically modified organisms are not only safe but also necessary for addressing food shortages in the world. This exposition examines Zohar's viewpoint, the conflicting perspectives alluded to in his arguments, and the efficacy of his refutation of those positions.
**Author's Point of View**
Zohar’s article advocates for the acceptance and utilization of genetically modified salmon as a solution to global food security challenges. He maintains that the modifications made to the AquAdvantage salmon—specifically the insertion of an additional fish gene—are minimal and targeted compared to traditional methods of selective breeding. His point of view underscores the need for innovative solutions in food production, particularly in the face of increasing population and diminishing resources. Zohar seeks to reassure the public that genetically engineered products, particularly the AquAdvantage salmon, can contribute positively to feeding the world without compromising health or safety.
**Conflicting Viewpoint and Refutation**
In the excerpt provided, Zohar indirectly references the fear and skepticism surrounding genetic engineering. Many consumers, influenced by negative media portrayals and concerns over food safety, may be apprehensive about eating genetically modified products. Zohar counters this by explaining the precision of genetic modifications compared to traditional breeding methods, which are less controlled and more unpredictable. He emphasizes that the changes implemented in the AquAdvantage salmon do not alter its health benefits or biological composition, presenting the Food and Drug Administration’s endorsement of its safety as a crucial piece of evidence. By framing genetic modification as a “powerful platform” that is meticulously regulated, Zohar aims to diminish the stigma attached to the term “genetic engineering.”
**Effectiveness of the Refutation**
Zohar's refutation is effective on several levels. First, he successfully addresses the common fears associated with GMOs by providing a scientific basis for understanding genetic manipulation. By comparing genetic modifications to the longstanding practice of selective breeding, he positions GMOs as a more precise and reliable method of enhancing food production. Additionally, referencing the FDA’s approval adds an authoritative voice to his argument, reinforcing the notion that genetically modified salmon is not just safe, but beneficial. However, some critics might argue that relying solely on governmental endorsements does not adequately address potential long-term ecological impacts, nor does it engage with ethical considerations regarding consumer autonomy and transparency in the food supply. While Zohar makes compelling points, the effectiveness of his argument could be strengthened by acknowledging these broader concerns.
**Conclusion**
In conclusion, Zohar's article on genetically modified salmon presents a supportive and optimistic view of genetic engineering as a necessary innovation for addressing food security. By addressing common fears and providing scientific validation, he effectively promotes the AquAdvantage salmon as a safe and valuable addition to our food sources. However, acknowledging the broader implications of genetic modification, including ecological and ethical considerations, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding this contentious issue. As society grapples with the future of food production, it is crucial that discussions about GMOs remain well-informed and balanced, considering both the potential benefits and risks involved.