Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) discussion is becoming a day by day issue due to the concern it brings about, regarding the health and safety of humans. According to the two articles that I have used in this essay, consuming genetically modified foods is safe. However, the approach employed by the two articles to prove their points differs. The first article bases its argument on inferences from other materials. The second article depends on extensive research. A closer review of the two articles follows.
According to Haspel, the safety of genetically modified foods is equal to that of non-genetic foods (Haspel, 2016, May 17). These deductions were an echo of the National Academy of Sciences report. He went ahead and assured the credibility of the report by citing that it had taken two years to have it prepared. The report indicated no adverse effect on humans and could attribute no evidence of contamination or intoxication on people due to the GE foods (Haspel, 2016, May 17).
While this report found no evidence health concerns resulting from the use of GE, it could not entirely deny the association of the modified crops and animals with particular health effects on humans (Haspel, 2016, May 17). In fact, the report indicated that the GEs could lead to weed resistance to herbicides. Such a point significantly reduces the credibility of the story as it appears incomplete. The uncertainty of the report on weeds resistance is a further injury to the report.
Seralini et al. compiled a report, based on their study, on the effects of GMO on humans using rats as a specimen. They indicated the driving factor as the modern lifestyle diseases and therefore launched a probe to find out if the GEs could have a further impact on human health (Seralini et al., 2009). The study therefore aimed at looking at the toxicological effects of chemicals used in food production on mammalian health.
A preliminary survey by Monsanto, feeding rats with MON 863 (a type of genetically modified food) gave crude results and Seralini, and his research team wanted to resolve the arising questions from the crude study (Seralini et al., 2009). This improvement makes their report more credible and highly acceptable. The study used the protocol followed when conducting scientific tests such as testing drugs to be used on humans.
After the review, it was agreeable that GMOs have limited effect on the health in human beings. However, the biological acceptability of any intoxication of mammals by GM diets cannot be neglected (Seralini et al., 2009). There is no clear indication of intoxication that directly arises from the use of GMOs. This unclarity suggests that there ought to be further research on the same. The results will remove the present ambiguity.
From the two resources, it is agreeable that GMO food products are safe for human consumption; at least to a considerable extent (Haspel, 2016, May 17; Seralini et al., 2009). While the two resources use diversified proofs to support their opinion, Seralini, et al. appear to have composed a highly credible report for this study. Their report refers to conducted tests; compared to Haspels record which has fewer figures from the research conducted. Resultantly, Haspels report is questionable as it relies on opinions from a review of a report. Seralini et al. (2009) give the impression to have the scientifically valuable resource that is facts based with supporting figures from conducted experiments.
Haspel, T. (2016, May 17). Scientists Say GMO Foods Are Nontoxic, Public Skepticism Remains. Retrieved August 25, 2016, fromhttp://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/17/scientists-say-gmo-foods-are-safepublic skepticism, remains/
Seralini, G. E., De Vendomois, J. S., Cellier, D., Sultan, C., Buiatti, M., Gallagher, L., &Dronamraju, K. R. (2009). How subchronic and chronic healthiness effects can beneglected for GMOs, pesticides or chemicals.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal: