Lauren Clowney

Mrs. Crandall

AP Language-2nd

17 October 2019

Literature Review

The growing debate surrounding the controversial use and effects of GMOs is

undoubtedly contentious. The two opposing sides to this debate see the uses and effects of

GMOs quite differently, yet research supports arguments on both sides. With substantial

evidence being presented on both sides, it is arduous to figure out which side is the right side.

For example, widely known scientist, Bill Nye, “used to think genetically modified organisms

weren't a great idea” and he has since changed his mind (Ramsey 1). Nye visited Monsanto, a

corporation known for genetically modifying agricultural products. Nye, being a well-known

scientist, is a credible source when it comes to the subject of GMOs since he had the opportunity

to see the legitimacy behind the GMO process. Around that time, Nye told Real Time's Miles

Leicher that he had "revised [his] outlook" (Ramsey 3). This perspective provides a sense of

confidence in the reader because Nye not only saw first hand how the` GMO process works, but

also has immense experience in this field. If Bill Nye has changed his viewpoint on GMOs,

should we do the same? (rhetorical question)

Another article that supports the use of GMOs is “Why GMOs Are a Necessity” by

Karen Batra. Batra asserts that “GMOs benefit not only farmers and the public, but also

biodiversity, soil quality, water quality, carbon sequestration-in short, the environment” (38).

The author substantiates her claim by starting her article off with statistics: “Genetic

modification boosts crop yields by 21 percent and cuts pesticides by 37 percent” (1). This
organization of beginning her article with statistics allows Batra to argue her side of the issue

substantiated with convincing evidence. Batra includes numerous anecdotes and statistics

throughout this article in order to effectively persuade her audience without any bias: “In 2014,

for example, two German researchers at the University of Göttingen, Wilhelm Klumper and

Matin Qaim, consolidated the findings of 147 studies dating to 1996. They found that GMOs

increased crop yields by an average of 21% world-wide and reduced the use of pesticides by

37%. Farmers who adopted GMOs increased their profits by 69% on average, with the gains

going disproportionately to the developing world” (40). According to Batra’s extensive research,

GMOs appear to be beneficial for farmers, the public, and also biodiversity.

In the next article, “Here's The Real Reason Why GMOs Are Bad, And Why They May

Save Humanity”, Erik Kobayashi-Solomon suggests that “there are two very good reasons to be

wary about GMOs: implementation and efficacy” (22). The author includes graphs, charts,

statistics and personal anecdotes in this article in order to substantiate his claim that even though

scientific research proves GMOs are not safe, they are very beneficial to our growing population

(juxtaposition):“The moral of the story is that there is no reason to be frightened of the

technology behind GMO crops. You should, however, be very worried about the current

implementation of GMO due to its effects on cropland, the ecosystem, and human health, and

that research into GMOs is taking resources away from potentially much more helpful cross-

breeding projects in the short run” (78). Kobayashi-Solomon conveys that GMOs are harmful to

the environment and our health, but are necessary for our growing population.

Conversely, the opposing side of the GMO argument is introduced in “The

Environmental Impact of GMOs”. The author, Emily Glass, claims that “the problem of

environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than simply potentially harming our
health” (Glass 56). Glass first starts off her article with what precisely a GMO is, as defined by

the WHO: “First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Health

Organization (WHO) defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural

way” (Glass 4). Glass discusses the impacts of GMOs on different parts of the environment in

order to argue her claim that the environmental damage done by GMOs is catastrophic: “Finally,

biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put at

risk by GMOs” (Glass 66). Additionally, in “10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs”, Jeffrey Smith argues

that “numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996” (Smith 7).

Smith includes statistics and anecdotes from credible sources such as the FDA in order to

substantiate his claim that GMOs are unhealthy to humans and harmful to the environment:

“Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even

among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side

effects. They urged long-term safety studies” (Smith 67).

Works Cited

Ramsey, Lydia. “Here's the Critical Reason Bill Nye the Science Guy Changed His Mind on
GMOs.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 13 July 2015, https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-
nye-explains-his-stance-on-gmos-2015-7.
 Batra, Karen. “Why GMOs Are a Necessity.” BIOtechNow, 4 Oct. 2016, https://www.biotech-
now.org/food-and-agriculture/2016/10/why-gmos-are-a-necessity.

Glass, Emily. “The Environmental Impact of GMOs.” One Green Planet, One Green Planet, 29
Oct. 2018, https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/the-environmental-impact-of-
gmos/.

Kobayashi-Solomon, Erik. “Here's The Real Reason Why GMOs Are Bad, And Why They May
Save Humanity.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Feb. 2019,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2019/02/15/heres-the-real-reason-why-
gmos-are-bad-and-why-they-may-save-humanity/#5d062d864877.

Smith, Jeffrey. “10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs.” Institute for Responsible Technology, 16 Jan.
2017, https://responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs/.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case

_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html