Question
Based off of these two exerts "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." and "I am and always will be completely against any food that has been altered genetically for human consumption. And never, in the 30-plus years I have been a restaurant chef, has one customer requested a genetically modified organism for dinner. This is why I was alarmed to learn early this month that the Food and Drug Administration announced with "reasonable certainty" that a new genetically modified Atlantic salmon awaiting approval posed “no harm” to humans who might soon have the opportunity to buy it and eat it as though it were a fish from nature. The announcement brings this “Frankenfish” one step closer to your table. But make no mistake. The creation of this fish is just another tactic for big industry to make bigger, faster profits with no consideration for the impact it will have on our personal health and the health of our environment and ecosystem. The fish, an Atlantic salmon, contains growth hormone from a Pacific species, the Chinook salmon, as well as genetic material from another species, the ocean pout, that causes the “transgenic” salmon to grow at twice the normal speed." answer these questions. Which argument did you find more compelling? Why? Did your view change over the course of your analysis? Respond with these important things: Begins with a topic sentence that TTQA (The argument I find more compelling is…) Elaborates on your topic sentence claim and qualifies your ideas with evidence from the paragraphs At least 2 summarized examples with 2 sentence commentary At least 1 quote that is properly introduced with 1 sentence commentary Acknowledges the counterargument and if you changed your mind about the topic (Others may believe…; However, . . .) (My viewpoint on this issue did/did not change because…) Is at least 8 sentences long Uses correct capitalization and punctuation
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The argument I find more compelling is the first one, which defends the safety and benefits of genetically engineered organisms like the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon. This perspective emphasizes the precision and targeted nature of genetic engineering compared to traditional selective breeding, which often alters multiple genes without clear understanding. For instance, the author notes that "the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon has only one extra copy of a fish gene inserted into its genome," illustrating that the modifications made are minimal and specifically designed to enhance growth without impacting the fish's physiological range. This argument supports the idea that such targeted interventions can improve food production efficiency without compromising human health or safety.
Additionally, the argument emphasizes that “these are fish hormones that have no effect on the human consumer,” pointing towards a crucial distinction between the health impacts on the fish and those on people. This assertion reinforces the notion that the genetic modifications made do not pose any additional health risks to consumers, challenging the fear often associated with genetically modified organisms.
On the other hand, the opposing argument raises concerns about the implications of genetic modifications and characterizes the AquAdvantage salmon as a "Frankenfish." It suggests that these genetic alterations are primarily driven by corporate profit motives, with insufficient consideration for human health and environmental impacts. While I understand the apprehension surrounding genetically modified food, I believe that the benefits outlined in the first argument—such as safety verified by the Food and Drug Administration—outweigh the concerns raised. Others may believe that any form of genetic modification is inherently dangerous; however, the precise nature of the modifications in the AquAdvantage salmon suggests a manageable risk rather than a blanket threat. My viewpoint on this issue did not change because I see the potential for responsible advancements in food technology that can meet growing food demands while ensuring safety for consumers.
Additionally, the argument emphasizes that “these are fish hormones that have no effect on the human consumer,” pointing towards a crucial distinction between the health impacts on the fish and those on people. This assertion reinforces the notion that the genetic modifications made do not pose any additional health risks to consumers, challenging the fear often associated with genetically modified organisms.
On the other hand, the opposing argument raises concerns about the implications of genetic modifications and characterizes the AquAdvantage salmon as a "Frankenfish." It suggests that these genetic alterations are primarily driven by corporate profit motives, with insufficient consideration for human health and environmental impacts. While I understand the apprehension surrounding genetically modified food, I believe that the benefits outlined in the first argument—such as safety verified by the Food and Drug Administration—outweigh the concerns raised. Others may believe that any form of genetic modification is inherently dangerous; however, the precise nature of the modifications in the AquAdvantage salmon suggests a manageable risk rather than a blanket threat. My viewpoint on this issue did not change because I see the potential for responsible advancements in food technology that can meet growing food demands while ensuring safety for consumers.