Question
Genetically Modified Foods
Halos and cuties are oranges that have been genetically modified (GM) to not rot fast when peeled. These oranges have a gene artificially introduced into their cells that stops the proteins that cause rotting from being formed within the cell. These articles are about the sale of Arctic apples in the U.S.
Article I: Halos and cuties were not created to keep people healthy but to look nice after they have been peeled. The same gene that helps stop the rotting of oranges in the gene used to help fight off insects, pests, and diseases. In addition, people do not want genetically modified food. Oranges already have high levels of toxic pesticides that are linked to chemical changes in people's bodies. Those pesticides are already on 90% of people's bodies in the U.S. and are found in even higher concentrations in children.
Article 2: Today the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that Halos and cuties are safe for eating, GMOs must meet the same logical and ethical standards of food grown the traditional way. The review process includes research on the molecular changes and nutritional makeup of GMOs. The FDA has no food safety questions about halos or cuties at this time.
Part A: In your opinion, explain whether GMOs are positive or negative. (Essay answer is at least 4 complete sentences, including examples from each article.
Part B: Using Part A, discuss the counterclaim of your argument. Does the opposing side believe GMOs are positive or negative?
Halos and cuties are oranges that have been genetically modified (GM) to not rot fast when peeled. These oranges have a gene artificially introduced into their cells that stops the proteins that cause rotting from being formed within the cell. These articles are about the sale of Arctic apples in the U.S.
Article I: Halos and cuties were not created to keep people healthy but to look nice after they have been peeled. The same gene that helps stop the rotting of oranges in the gene used to help fight off insects, pests, and diseases. In addition, people do not want genetically modified food. Oranges already have high levels of toxic pesticides that are linked to chemical changes in people's bodies. Those pesticides are already on 90% of people's bodies in the U.S. and are found in even higher concentrations in children.
Article 2: Today the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that Halos and cuties are safe for eating, GMOs must meet the same logical and ethical standards of food grown the traditional way. The review process includes research on the molecular changes and nutritional makeup of GMOs. The FDA has no food safety questions about halos or cuties at this time.
Part A: In your opinion, explain whether GMOs are positive or negative. (Essay answer is at least 4 complete sentences, including examples from each article.
Part B: Using Part A, discuss the counterclaim of your argument. Does the opposing side believe GMOs are positive or negative?
Answers
GPT-4o mini
**Part A: Opinion on GMOs**
In my opinion, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be seen as both positive and negative, depending on the perspective taken. On one hand, as mentioned in Article 2, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed Halos and Cuties safe for consumption after a thorough review process that considers their molecular changes and nutritional makeup. This suggests that GMOs can provide benefits such as enhanced shelf life and fewer losses due to spoilage, which is a plus for consumers and farmers alike. On the other hand, Article 1 highlights important concerns regarding the potential health risks associated with the consumption of GMOs. It raises valid points about the existing toxic pesticide levels found on oranges and the potential for further chemical changes in people’s bodies, especially in vulnerable populations like children. This duality illustrates the complexity of GMOs, where their benefits may come at a cost to public health and safety.
**Part B: Counterclaim Discussion**
Opponents of GMOs typically argue that they are more negative than positive, focusing on the health and ethical implications of consuming genetically modified foods. As stated in Article 1, critics emphasize that GMOs, like Halos and Cuties, have been developed primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than health benefits, suggesting that the priorities behind their creation may not align with consumer well-being. They express concern over existing pesticide residues and the potential long-term health effects that GMOs might pose, arguing that these modifications could undermine public health. Consequently, the counterclaim presents GMOs as inherently problematic, arguing that their risks outweigh the potential benefits of improved agricultural efficiency or longevity in shelf life.
In my opinion, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be seen as both positive and negative, depending on the perspective taken. On one hand, as mentioned in Article 2, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed Halos and Cuties safe for consumption after a thorough review process that considers their molecular changes and nutritional makeup. This suggests that GMOs can provide benefits such as enhanced shelf life and fewer losses due to spoilage, which is a plus for consumers and farmers alike. On the other hand, Article 1 highlights important concerns regarding the potential health risks associated with the consumption of GMOs. It raises valid points about the existing toxic pesticide levels found on oranges and the potential for further chemical changes in people’s bodies, especially in vulnerable populations like children. This duality illustrates the complexity of GMOs, where their benefits may come at a cost to public health and safety.
**Part B: Counterclaim Discussion**
Opponents of GMOs typically argue that they are more negative than positive, focusing on the health and ethical implications of consuming genetically modified foods. As stated in Article 1, critics emphasize that GMOs, like Halos and Cuties, have been developed primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than health benefits, suggesting that the priorities behind their creation may not align with consumer well-being. They express concern over existing pesticide residues and the potential long-term health effects that GMOs might pose, arguing that these modifications could undermine public health. Consequently, the counterclaim presents GMOs as inherently problematic, arguing that their risks outweigh the potential benefits of improved agricultural efficiency or longevity in shelf life.