Question

Analyze a text for a conflicting point of view and evidence, write 5 paragraph and answer these questions, and provide textual support.

1. What is the author’s point of view?
2. What conflicting point of view does the author present?
3. How well does Zohar refute the conflicting viewpoint
the controversy surrounding genetically modified organisms has intensified since the introduction and promotion of genetically modified salmon in recent years. Rick Moonen and Yonathan Zohar offer opposing viewpoints regarding the effects of genetically modified salmon.


Zohar uses rigorous regulatory procedures and research-based evidence to support his claim that genetically modified salmon can address global hunger and aquaculture sustainability issues. On the other hand, Moonen criticizes GMOs, drawing attention to possible ecological hazards and ethical issues. He brings up the loss of biodiversity and the naturalness principle, claiming that genetically altering species compromises the integrity of the food chain.

The discourse's polarization draws attention to the complicated nature of food technology developments, where the necessity to meet human needs must be weighed against possible threats to biodiversity, human health, and the integrity of food systems. To make well-informed decisions and promote a discussion about the complex issues of feeding a growing world population responsibly, it is essential to critically analyze both sides of the debate.

Answer 1

In the current debate surrounding genetically modified organisms, particularly genetically modified salmon, Zohar presents a pro-GMO point of view that emphasizes the potential benefits of such technologies in addressing global hunger and improving aquaculture sustainability. He argues that with a growing population and increasingly strained natural resources, the development of genetically modified salmon represents a viable solution to meet the rising demand for protein. Zohar leans on rigorous regulatory procedures and comprehensive research to support his stance, which reinforces the assertion that genetically modified food can be produced safely while contributing to environmental sustainability.

Conversely, Rick Moonen articulates a contrasting perspective that raises significant concerns regarding the widespread use of GMOs, including the potential ecological risks and ethical dilemmas they pose. Moonen's argument hinges on the idea that introducing genetically modified organisms, such as salmon, could threaten biodiversity and disrupt established ecosystems. He points specifically to the possibility that these altered species could outcompete their wild counterparts, leading to detrimental effects on natural populations and, ultimately, the integrity of the food chain. By asserting the naturalness principle, Moonen highlights the moral implications of altering living organisms, emphasizing that such changes undermine our connection to nature.

Zohar addresses Moonen's criticisms by maintaining that technological innovation in food production is a necessary response to the pressing challenges of modern society. He counters Moonen’s concerns about biodiversity by pointing out that with careful management and rigorous controls, the risks associated with GM salmon can be minimized. Zohar posits that the data from extensive research supports the idea that genetically modified salmon can be safely integrated into existing food systems, and he argues that the precautionary measures in place can mitigate the potential for negative ecological impacts. This reliance on empirical evidence serves to strengthen Zohar's case against Moonen’s broader, more abstract concerns.

However, Zohar's rebuttal does not completely neutralize Moonen's arguments. While he provides data and reassurances about the safety and efficacy of genetically modified salmon, critics may still argue that the unforeseen long-term consequences of altering ecosystems remain unpredictable. While Zohar emphasizes regulations and research, the ecological intricacies and ethical dimensions surrounding GMOs suggest a need for caution that Zohar may not fully acknowledge. Refuting Moonen’s perspective about biodiversity loss may require a more nuanced examination of ecological interdependencies, rather than solely relying on managed practices.

Ultimately, the polarized discourse exemplified by Zohar and Moonen encapsulates the complexity of pursuing food technology innovations. As society grapples with the dual challenges of feeding an expanding population and safeguarding the environment, it becomes essential to balance the benefits against the risks through critical analysis and thoughtful discussion. Engaging with both Zohar’s optimism regarding GM salmon and Moonen’s caution fosters a broader understanding of the ethical and ecological ramifications of food production processes, enabling more informed decisions moving forward. As the debate over GMOs continues, it is vital to consider the multifaceted perspectives that inform this ongoing controversy.