Genetically Modified Food

By: Kayla-Cymone Nwokeji

Nathaniel Johnson writes on the topic on how to find the truths about genetically modified food. Throughout his first article, he speaks about how it is so hard to find reliable information and hard facts on this topic. Many people who either agree or disagree seem to have reliable facts and have done there research about the substance and how it effects your body or immune system of those who consumes these genetically modified foods. In this first article he also discloses that he doesn’t really know much about the topic and he is really trying to figure out what is true about GM foods.

What I do not seem to understand is why he would want to be interested in finding out the truth behind genetically modified foods and he has not done any research himself on the topic?

Also if none of the research that has surfaced has been reliable then why rely on that same research to give him accurate information?

This article makes me think that most of what Nathaniel says about genetically modified foods will not be from a reliable source because he has already said that any information that he has heard from sources are not always accurate. Also saying that there is no way to see if these foods are harmful or not is not very reassuring.


About muvaog

Kari's Mom 💗

5 Responses to “Genetically Modified Food”

  1. This article reads more like a blog than a credible news piece. Although it does contain some useful quotes, it is lacking the hard data it needs to make this a credible article that examines the choices consumers make when consuming GMOs. My questions are: why is this surfacing now? Why did 28 states introduce bills to label GMOs in 2013? One thing I noticed is that in addition to this article, all of the articles assigned for the class reading were written in 2013.

    That being said, I think that the most compelling issue that this particular article brings up is the issue of staying “huddled up in the basement”. The YOLO video is a funny representation of this, but it brings to light a serious issue. Should we be scared of these GMOs? Should we not test the waters, not eat anything that could possibly have a one in a million chance of harming us? Well, in the case of GMOs, I think that until their is significant data out there that links GMOs to heart disease or increased chance of liver damage or something like that, I will not shy away from eating an extra big, extra juicy apple.

    One thing however, that does raise concern, is the possible link between eating these genetically modified super foods and the lack of “good bacteria” in a Western person because of our diet and lifestyle. Are GMOs reducing our exposure to bacteria and creating autoimmune problems in humans? I don’t think there’s been much research into that, but I think that there might be a connection there.

  2. I agree that the article reads more like a blog, rather than a credible news piece. This being said, it seems that the way Johnson presents the story itself conveys the main idea of the story. I think the main point of his story could have been that there is still much to be understood about GMO foods, rather than the effects of GMO foods on human health, as made clear through his style of writing (making it clear that despite his research efforts seeking out experts on the issue he has a hard time finding the truth). I could be wrong in guessing the intent of the author, but to me it was a refreshing way of presenting a story. In addition, his uncertainty and confusion on the matter makes him write in a less sophisticated, more understandable way, which is beneficial for the general audience as well.

  3. This article, in my opinion, did not do a very good job of covering the GM issue. I know he mentioned that there will be more articles to follow, but he could have introduced the topic better by providing more scientific and political background near the beginning of the article. He only covered the very basics later on by very briefly touching on how GM’s are produced and that it may or may not be harmful to human health and can vary from person to person. He uses quotes from credible people but no statistics to connect the issue to the reader. Also, the fact that he spoke in 1st person as well as asked questions to the readers as if the article were a conversation makes me take the piece less seriously. I felt like there was a lot of extraneous text to read through, and at the end, not much new was discovered (essentially no new “nugget” of information).

  4. With the little he covered in this article as to the overall length, I doubt I would continue reading the rest of his articles on the topic. He seems to be just adding to the white noise of the debate and not bringing anything novel. I guess we would classify that as fail to make me understand why I should care and why I should care now.

  5. It struck me as a great deal of writing to bring across very little information, especially after giving the impression in the beginning paragraphs that the writer intended to come up with real data if not outright answers. The entire work seems to wander around the topic without any conclusion, other than to accuse “scientists” of the same thing, with the insertion of a scoff. There were no insights or real conclusions, and ended without finishing, so to speak. I agree wholeheartedly, it did nothing to justify interest or concern.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s