Do GMOs help or harm people?

The World Health Organisation defines genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as “organisms (i.e.

plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that

does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination”. The question of whether they help or

harm people has become the source of substantial debate. As with any technological development, genetic

engineering has frightened humans for the simple reason that it is new and unknown. However, extensive

research can show that this fear is unfounded, because there are a number of benefits that can stem from

GMOs, while their unsafety has never been confirmed. Commented [1]: Criteria 1: Introduction
Your introduction presents the topic and includes your
thesis statement which is clear and accessible.

Genetically modified organisms have the potential to constitute more nutritious food. For example,

golden rice is genetically engineered from rice through insertion of two genes that produce a precursor of

vitamin A. The Golden Rice Project seeks to provide this genetically modified rice to less developed

areas where the diet mainly consists of rice without vitamin A. This measure could prevent blindness and

reduce immune system response caused by vitamin A deficiency. Besides golden rice, there are numerous

other genetically modified crops with significant nutritious benefits and the potential to fight malnutrition

such as banana, potatoes, wheat, oranges, soybean, or apples. Opposition to these projects often comes on

the basis that they further encourage the dominance of rice over other cultures in developing countries,

which leads to loss of diversity in nutrition. However, we should not blame an already existent problem,

lack of food diversity, on the new Golden Rice Project for the simple reason that it does not solve this Commented [2]: can we avoid repetition of a phrase
which has other alternatives?
particular problem. Instead, we can focus on the benefits of the project on the specific problem it has set

out to solve, which is vitamin A deficit, as long as this is a persisting problem and concrete alternative

solutions are not offered along with the counterarguments.

Crops that have been genetically engineered are expected to give rise to higher yield and more attractive

products. According to a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, crops genetically

modified with genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gain a built-in insecticide. The study mentions that,

from 1996 to 2015, Bt in maize and cotton contributed to a reduction in crop losses while non-Bt varieties

suffered substantial damage due to targeted insect pests. Furthermore, a study published in Scientific

Report on the impact of genetically engineered maize explored the effect of genetic engineering (GE) on

grain yield and quality. The results indicated that GE maize hybrids increased yield by 10.1%, and that

the GE maize grain has considerably better quality, containing lower amounts of mycotoxins (29%),

fumonisin (31%) and thricotecens (37%) than its non-GE counterpart. Some genetically modified species

can also have enhanced flavor if this characteristic is specifically targeted.

A specific concern regarding GMOs is the risk it poses to human health, but it is largely agreed that Commented [3]: can the transition to refuting
counterarguments be smoother, maybe a more clear
genetically modified food is not toxic. While we can never fully confirm that it is safe, no proof otherwise link

has been found in decades of extensive research and testing, according to the major health organizations

(World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, American

Cancer Society, and others). For example, a study conducted by Harvard University scholars claims that

modified DNA is no more likely than normal DNA to transfer to the person who eats it. Additionally, the

public concern that GMOs can cause cancer is not supported by evidence.

The risk posed on the environment by GMOs is also an argument often used to argue against them, but

evidence actually shows the opposite because it causes dramatic reduction in pesticide use. According to

the Royal Society, the overuse of herbicides harms the environment instead by resulting in the excessive

eradication of wild plants from farmland. Furthermore, out-crossing, the unintentional breeding of a

domestic crop with a related plant, does not differ significantly from the same risk associated with non-

GMOs.
The fears concerning GMOs are believed to be irrational by scientific experts. For instance, Dr. Kevin

Folta argues about the inconsistency of accepting genetic engineering of microbes to produce insulin but

of rejecting the idea of modifying the genes of other plants to improve our food supply. According to an

article of the Washington Post, people are scared of GMOs because they do not possess enough

information to understand it and act on a psychological tendency to desire naturalness in food, as part of a

more general aversion towards new technology. In fact, genetic engineering has been practiced for

decades through the use of radiation and chemicals to cause mutation in crops, in addition to traditional

crossbreeding. However, the process is now more controlled in the laboratories of genetic engineers who

know exactly what gene they take and what it does.

In conclusion, genetically modified organisms have numerous benefits for humans, and no evidence of

their unsafety has been found. The natural tendency of people to resist change brought about by the

process of genetic modification is largely unfounded and needs to be replaced by better information on

the numerous benefits of GMOs.

Overall Feedback:

Criteria 1: Please check my comment on the text.

Criteria 2: Arguments- You have successfully given arguments and examples to support your thesis

statement. You included a variety of sources to build your arguments. You have also refuted several

counter arguments with use of evidence.

Criteria 3: Conclusion- Your conclusion wraps up your essay and highlights the main idea. You have

even made a suggestion, adding your personal view on the topic.

Criteria 4: Use of English- You used the language accurately and coherently. However, there are minor

proofreading issues you might want to go over. Some of them are highlighted by me.

Since the minor issues have not affected the overall flow of the essay and the set criteria were followed,

your grade for this essay is 10/10.