thesis statement for gmo

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Genetics — GMO

Essays on Gmo

Genetically modified food essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: genetically modified food: benefits, risks, and ethical considerations.

Thesis Statement: This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of genetically modified (GM) food, exploring its potential benefits in agriculture and food security, examining the associated risks, and discussing the ethical implications of altering the genetic makeup of organisms.

• Introduction
• Understanding Genetic Modification: Techniques and Applications in Agriculture
• The Benefits of GM Food: Increased Crop Yields, Reduced Pesticide Use, and Improved Nutrition
• Potential Risks and Concerns: Environmental Impact, Allergenicity, and Long-Term Health Effects
• Ethical Dilemmas: Ownership of Genetic Resources, Consent, and Consumer Rights
• Regulation and Labeling: Balancing Innovation with Transparency
• Conclusion: The Complex Landscape of Genetically Modified Food

Essay Title 2: GMOs and Global Food Security: Examining the Role of Genetically Modified Crops

Thesis Statement: This essay focuses on the relationship between genetically modified crops and global food security, investigating how GM technology can address challenges such as population growth, climate change, and sustainable agriculture.

• The Global Food Crisis: Feeding a Growing Population
• GM Crops as a Solution: Drought Resistance, Pest Tolerance, and Enhanced Nutrition
• Environmental Considerations: Sustainable Farming and Reduced Carbon Footprint
• Challenges and Criticisms: Concerns About Corporate Control and Biodiversity
• Case Studies: Success Stories and Lessons from GM Crop-Adopting Countries
• Conclusion: The Promise and Pitfalls of Genetically Modified Crops for Food Security

Essay Title 3: Informed Consumer Choices: GMO Labeling and the Right to Know

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the debate over GMO labeling, emphasizing the importance of transparency in food labeling, consumers' right to know about GM ingredients, and the implications of labeling policies on the food industry and public perception.

• The GMO Labeling Movement: Origins, Goals, and Advocacy
• Transparency vs. Industry Interests: The Controversy Surrounding Labeling Laws
• Consumer Perceptions: Trust, Skepticism, and Informed Decision-Making
• Global Perspectives: Labeling Practices in Various Countries
• Impact on the Food Industry: Compliance, Product Formulation, and Market Trends
• Conclusion: Balancing Consumer Rights and Industry Interests in GMO Labeling

Gmo Persuasive Speech Outline

Gmo good or bad, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Should Genetically Modified Organisms Be Labeled

Genetically modified food, research the impact of genetically modified food on health, why gmo foods are bad, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Arguments for Genetically Modified Food

Harmful effects of gmo products, gmo: negative sides and a higher purpose, the potential of gmos to help combat world hunger, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Gmos: History, Effects, and Controversies

Genetic engineering: using biotechnology in gmo, environmental impact of plastics, gmos, and animal captivity, the use and safety of gmos from a skeptical point of view, the genetically modified food as the risk in the society, research whether genetically modified food is good or bad, banning unlabeled genetically modified food, the impact of gmos on humans and the environment, genetically modified organisms: soybeans, questionable idea of genetic modification of humans, in vitro meat as a sustainable solution, genetically modified foods: history of creation and use, the issue surrounding the health dangers of genetically modified food, cereals as a staple & refined food, the potential harm of consuming genetically modified food, gene editing and the future of food, the issues surrounding the consumption of genetically modified foods, the future of food supply and agriculture, discussion on the theme of genetically modified foods, the importance of genetically modified food for the storage of the african savannah.

Genetically modified foods (GM foods), also known as genetically engineered foods (GE foods), or bioengineered foods are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering.

The first genetically modified food approved for release was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. It was engineered to have a longer shelf life by inserting an antisense gene that delayed ripening. China was the first country to commercialize a transgenic crop in 1993 with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco. In 1995, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Potato was approved for cultivation, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US.

Genetically modified foods are usually edited to have some desired characteristics, including certain benefits for surviving extreme environments, an enhanced level to nutrition, the access of therapeutic substances, and the resistance genes to pesticide and herbicides. These characteristics could be beneficial to humans and the environment in certain ways.

Studies show that GMO crops have fewer chances of mutating compared to non-GMO crops. Over 12% of global farmland grows GMO crops. 54% of all GMOs worldwide grow in the Third World countries. Soybeans count for half of all GMO crops grown worldwide.

Relevant topics

• Time Travel
• Space Exploration
• Stephen Hawking
• Natural Selection
• Nikola Tesla

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs

In my understanding, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the needed help in resolving shortage of food throughout the world. Scientists create a more robust and better version of the current vegetables, fruits and other items humans consume. For example, as far as I know, the current version of bananas is GMO since, in the wilds, bananas had large seeds, were green and looked utterly dissimilar to the yellow delicious fruit people are familiar with. GMO enhances the taste of a product and the amount of the product, which is why it can be a possible solution to resolving the worldwide hunger issues.

For the reason that I was interested in GMOs and did my research before, the article did not change my perception of it much since I have already known what GMOs are and that they are a predominant source of food presently. Moreover, as the population number will increase in the future years, the GMO industry will have to expand and adopt new methods of cultivating food (Uji, 2016, p. 78). Therefore, humanity will progress and benefit from the usage of such technologies.

The way a GMO was created does not matter to me as much because I trust scientists. They would not release a vegetable or an animal that would be hurtful for people since they do their research and check their specimens for safety. Therefore, a released and cultivated GMO, whether created through intragenesis or transgenesis, are safe for humans.

I feel proud that humanity has gone so far in improving nature’s gifts and improving the quality and quantity of cultivated foods. GMO technologies are on the right track since they aid people in ending the problem of hunger worldwide. Moreover, GMOs are more affordable and accessible since they can survive more than their natural counterparts.

Uji, O. (2016). European and American views on genetically modified foods. The New Atlantis , 49, 77–92. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 21). Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/

"Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs." IvyPanda , 21 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs'. 21 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs." November 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/.

1. IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs." November 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms: Views on GMOs." November 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-views-on-gmos/.

• Transgenic Animals: Methods and Reasons For Creating
• The Geography of a Breakfast Commodity: Bananas
• Genetically Modified Foods: Pros or Cons
• Growing GMO Seeds: Monsanto Corporation
• “The Sorrows of Young Werther” Novel by Goethe
• Nutrition: Is Genetically Modified Food Bad or Good?
• Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming
• GMO Production: Reasons and Potential Effects
• Froma Harrop Views on Genetically Modified Food
• Genetically Modified Organisms in Canadian Agriculture
• Genetically Modified Food: Analysis and Implications
• Genetically Modified Foods: Substantial Equivalence
• Genetically Modified Organisms: For and Against
• Understanding Genetically Modified Foods by Howard et al.
• A Technique for Controlling Plant Characteristics: Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• GM Crops Food
• v.13(1); 2022

The state of the ‘GMO’ debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?

Sarah evanega.

a The Alliance for Science, the Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, New York, USA

Joan Conrow

Jordan adams.

b Cision Global Insights, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Although nearly three decades have passed since genetically modified crops (so-called ‘GMOs’) were widely commercialized, vociferous debate remains about the use of biotechnology in agriculture, despite a worldwide scientific consensus on their safety and utility. This study analyzes the volume and tenor of the GMO conversation as it played out on social and traditional media between 2018 and 2020, looking at 103,084 online and print articles published in English-language media around the world as well as 1,716,071 social media posts. To our knowledge, our analysis is the first comprehensive survey of the shifting traditional and online media discourse on this issue during this time period. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts of over 80%. Traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, but that gap disappeared in 2020. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media. The large decline in volume of social media posts, combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability, may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag-biotech overall.

Introduction

Major international and national expert institutions and academies accept the scientific consensus that food produced from genetically modified (GM) crops is as safe as any other, and that no specific safety risks or health concerns can be attributed to consumption of so-called GMOs. 1 , 2 However, public opinion across the world has been markedly skeptical of GMOs since they were first introduced into the food supply in 1994. Some of the most frequently cited concerns are fears about food safety, corporate control of seeds and the food supply, potential pesticide use associated with the crops, and the welfare of smallholder farmers.

In China, for example, a survey carried out in 2016 found that 47% of people held a negative view of GMOs, with nearly 14% believing that “GM technology was a form of bioterrorism targeted at China.” 3 In Kenya, where the government initiated a ban on GM imports in 2013 but has recently permitted farmers to begin growing GM cotton, about a third of those polled held a negative opinion of GMOs as long ago as 2003. 4 In some European countries, opposition to GMOs can be particularly high: in Poland, a 2016 survey found that over 60% of respondents opposed the production and distribution of GM foods in the country. 5

This public suspicion is not shared by most scientists. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in the United States in 2015 detected a wider gap between scientists and the public on attitudes toward GMOs than any other area of science-related controversy, including vaccines, nuclear power, and pesticides. Specifically, only 37% of the general public thought that GM foods were safe to eat, compared to 88% of AAAS scientists. 6 Pew also found in 2016 that the US public was almost entirely unaware of the high level of consensus on GMO safety that exists in the scientific community, with only 14% of people concurring that “almost all of scientists agree that GM foods are safe to eat.” 7

Newer studies indicate more favorable public sentiment toward GM products. These include a study by the European Food Safety Authority that saw the percentage of Europeans choosing GMOs as a food safety concern drop from 66% in 2010 to just 27% in 2019 8 and an October 2019 Pew poll that found a majority of Americans surveyed believe it is likely that GM crops will increase the global food supply and result in more affordable food prices. 9

This study seeks to evaluate the volume, reach, and sentiment of the social and traditional media conversation around GMOs over a three-year period between January 2018 and December 2020. It aims to shed light on such questions as how media coverage may influence public perceptions, whether media share scientific perceptions around GMOs, how traditional and social media cover the issue, the influence of certain companies in affecting the tone of the conversation, the role of bots and cyborgs in the conversation, how the volume of coverage has shifted, and attitudes toward emerging tools in agricultural biotechnology.

Source data was gathered by Cision Media Insights, which combined 200 pre-defined top tier English-language media and 75,000 online media with social media to analyze trends in the GMO debate globally. Based on media availability, content is sourced via an in-house clipping service, automated feeds based on keywords (third-party API), manual searches for online content behind paywalls and database-sourced print media. Social media coverage includes English-language Twitter feeds and public Facebook pages. Content was captured using relevant keywords (See Supplementary Information for a list of top-tier media and keywords).

This content was subjected to automated computer analysis in real time, using Cision’s natural language processing and custom dictionaries, including a black/white list to help eliminate irrelevant content. Human analysis was included for relevance and sentiment validation of 10,800 top-tier English language articles and 54,000 social media posts, with analysis of the remainder being automated. In total 103,084 traditional media articles covering GMOs were analyzed, alongside 1,716,071 pieces of social media content.

For sentiment analysis, content was assigned a ‘positive’ tag if the statement generally would likely leave the reader feeling more positive about the corporations, individuals, or issues mentioned or if the journalist took a positive stance. A ‘negative’ tag was assigned if a statement would leave the reader likely feeling more critical or if the journalist took a negative stance. Factual explanations of the benefits of biotechnology would count as ‘positive,’ for example, while critiques would count as ‘negative.’ A neutral statement would express no position and the reader would likely not be swayed in any direction. The overall favorability value combines ‘positive’ and ‘neutral’ sentiment into a single value. We also use the ‘mixed’ or ‘ambivalent’ sentiment designation for lines of text that contain a positive and negative element. For an example, a statement such as “while studies have shown that GMO foods are safe to eat, or even safer than organic foods, their relationship to pesticides is a dangerous concern.” Full details of the Cision sentiment analysis method are given in Supplementary Information.

We use the term ‘gross reach’ to indicate the total potential audience of a media item, meaning the number of people who might have had the opportunity to see an original article or social media post, including reposts, replies, and retweets/shares of a social post. For print this includes the number of printed copies of a publication multiplied by the average number of readers per copy. For online this includes monthly page impressions of the URL of the given outlet (including sub-page impressions separately where possible) divided by the average number of published articles for that outlet. These readership and page impression counts for print and online are provided by third parties such as Nielsen. For social media, reach is based on the number of followers of the social media account.

As Fig. 1 shows, the volume of coverage of the GMO issue more than tripled in the time period we studied, from January 2018 (1320 articles) to December 2020 (4502 articles).

Volume of agricultural biotechnology GMO conversation in traditional media 2018–2020, showing the number of stories published.

The volume of social media interactions in the GMO conversation moved in the opposite direction however, showing a large decline between 2018 and 2020, falling from nearly 1.2 million to just under 200,000 in that time period, a decline of 82% ( Fig. 2 ).

Volume of agricultural biotechnology social media interactions media 2018–2020.

The overall tone of the traditional and social media GMO conversation during the 2018 to 2020 period is generally favorable ( Fig. 3 ). Favorability is defined as ‘positive’ and ‘neutral’ coverage as a percentage of the overall coverage, including ‘negative’ and ‘ambivalent’ coverage (see Methods). It is notable that the data are relatively noisy with high variance between the months in our sequence, ranging from a low of 47% in April 2019 to a high of 90% in April 2020. Overall favorability has increased somewhat over the three-year period, although the noisy data and relatively low R-squared value indicate low confidence in the robustness of this trend.

Sentiment analysis showing the favorability of the GMO conversation across all media (social and traditional combined) over a three-year period from Jan 2018 to Dec 2020.

The sentiment breakdown of the conversation on traditional and social media (combined) for the period of the study is depicted in Fig. 4 . The data for Fig. 4 are the same as Fig. 3 , with sentiment broken out into ‘negative,’ ‘positive,’ ‘ambivalent’ and ‘neutral’ categories rather than combined into a single overall favorability number for each month.

A monthly breakdown of sentiment across all media for the period Jan 2018 to Dec 2020.

While Figs. 3 and 4 look at the favorability of all media with traditional and social combined, Figs. 5 and 6 deal with the sentiment of traditional and social media separately. The sentiment of the traditional media conversation around GMOs was slightly more positive than that of social media during the study period, averaging 75% favorable if neutral and overtly positive reporting are combined ( Fig. 5 ) as compared with 67% favorability in social media ( Fig. 6 ). Average monthly values as high as 96% favorable are found in traditional media, while throughout the whole period favorability never dropped below 50% ( Fig. 5 ). However, as with the overall GMO conversation depicted in Figs. 3 and 5 shows noisy data with little confidence in the overall trend, with an R-squared value of 0.0479.

Traditional media sentiment analysis for the GMO conversation.

Social media sentiment analysis for the GMO conversation.

While sentiment toward GMOs in social media was substantially more variable than in traditional media, monthly values averaged in the 36-month time frame of the study show a strong long-term trend toward more positive social media coverage. While there were months in 2018 and 2019 when the favorability rating dropped to lows of 26% and 33%, it never dropped below 57% in 2020 ( Fig. 5 ). Figure 5 appears to show a more robust linear trend toward greater favorability in social media than traditional media, with an R-squared value of 0.2125 accounting for 21% of the variance by time.

Figure 7 shows annual averages of sentiment, broken into ‘positive,’ ‘negative,’ ‘neutral’ and ‘mixed’ categories for each year. As indicated above, one feature for 2018 and 2019 seems to be a substantially more negative sentiment seen in social media, although the two were almost equal in 2020.

Average sentiment per year across traditional media and social media for 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Figure 8 shows the key metrics for the GMO conversation. In terms of volume of content, there was an increase from 2018 to 2020, with 20,300 traditional media stories covering GMOs in 2018 ( Fig. 8a ) rising to 34,000 in 2019 ( Fig. 8b ) and 48,600 stories in 2020 ( Fig. 8c ). When assessed in terms of gross reach, the increase was from 1.8 billion to 3.7 billion over the same time period. There was a sharp downward trend in the visibility of the GMO issue on social media, however, from 1.2 million social posts in 2018 to 197,000 in 2020. This may suggest that despite an increase in ongoing traditional media coverage there is less salience in the GMO debate in the wider population as indicated in the sharp decline in the volume of social media posts, particularly when combined with the strong trend toward increased social media favorability seen in Fig. 6 .

Key metrics for the GMO conversation in 2018 (a), 2019 (b) and 2020 (c), showing volume, gross reach and sentiment breakdown.

The Monsanto/Bayer Effect

Monsanto (now part of Bayer) and its association with pesticides, notably glyphosate, appears to strongly drive negative perceptions toward GMOs. Coverage of Monsanto/Bayer in both traditional and social media was consistently and considerably more negative than coverage of GMOs overall. In some months almost the entirety of the social media conversation took a negative tone, such as April 2019 and November 2020, with only 1% favorability. ( Fig. 9 ).

The favorability of the coverage of Monsanto/Bayer over the three-year period in traditional (blue) and social (green) media.

As with the general GMO issue, traditional media coverage of Monsanto/Bayer was substantially more favorable than social, reaching highs of 100% on occasion. About a quarter of the overall GMO debate involved mentions of glyphosate as an issue, whereas a third to nearly half of traditional media coverage of GMOs involved Monsanto/Bayer. References to glyphosate in social media declined by 3% over that period, while the figure is 4% for traditional media (Figure not shown).

Influence of Twitter Bots and Cyborgs

Bot accounts represented 10% of Twitter users engaged in GMO discussions between 2018 and 2020 and contributed 10% of overall tweet volume. Bot accounts had much lower salience than human-operated accounts, contributing only 1% of gross reach. However, three out of the top ten Twitter accounts for volume of GMO content in 2019 were at least partially automated (listed as “undetermined” in Botometer scores) and so may appear to have influence due to the sheer volume of coverage (not shown). These cyborg accounts (human accounts that use automated posting for a large proportion of their content) were about 20% of overall accounts and were substantially more influential than bots. Combined, this suggests that about a third of users engaged in the GMO debate were cyborgs and bots. In addition, bots and cyborgs were substantially more negative in sentiment toward GMOs than human accounts. ( Fig. 10 )

Role of Bots in GMO coverage 2018–2020.

GMOs in Africa and South Asia

The GMO conversation was different in Africa and South Asia than in the United States, which dominated in terms of overall volume and gross reach. The gross reach for the 2018 GMO conversation in the US was 3.6 billion, compared to 116 million in Kenya and 113 million in the Philippines, the two next largest geographies. It was just 2.6 million in Bangladesh (data not shown).

In terms of sentiment analysis, though the conversation was generally favorable in all countries, it was more favorable in the US, with the Philippines registering the highest percentage of negative coverage ( Fig. 11 ).

Sentiment analysis of GMO coverage (traditional and social media) in six geographies from 2018–2020.

In 2019, the average favorability increased over 2018, though there was a decline in some geographies in 2020. In the US and Kenya, the favorability remained relatively stable across the three years, whereas it dropped in Uganda and Bangladesh over time. In Nigeria and the Philippines, the favorability was greatest in 2019 ( Fig. 12 ).

Favorability trends in six geographies.

Although there has been substantial academic attention given to the course of the biotechnology debate in the media, previous assessments have typically been based on small data samples analyzed by hand, including at most a few hundred articles. We believe this analysis to be the first that attempts to portray a rough aggregate picture of the whole debate in the English language over a broad time period, using machine-learning tools to assess many thousands of articles with a potential reach of billions of combined views. To our knowledge it is also the first to include social media in this analysis and compare it w ith trends in traditional media over several years.

Previous studies have analyzed news reporting on GMOs, though often only for a small snapshot of time and without a comprehensive evaluation of media coverage. A 2010 paper, for example, analyzed six UK newspapers for the first three months of 2004, finding that scientists at the time were presented simply as one competing interest group with no special claim to truth. 10 A study of Kenyan and international newspapers carrying biotechnology-related stories between 2010 and 2014 found that the publication of the 2012 Seralini study significantly increased the risk messaging in Kenyan reporting on the subject. 11 Stephen Morse conducted an analysis of global newspaper reporting on genetically modified crops between 1996 and 2013, finding – perhaps surprisingly – mildly positive coverage during the period. 12 Another long-term study, published more recently, looked at the Swedish GMO debate between 1994 and 2017. 13 In volume terms, the number of articles rose to a broad peak in 2003–05, falling gradually until 2017. The researchers also found a clear trend from negative to positive during the period. Leonie Marks and colleagues, in a 2007 analysis of UK and US traditional media, found that coverage of biotechnology was markedly more positive for medical than agricultural applications. 14

This type of analysis could be useful because high levels of skepticism about GM crops may be related to media coverage on the issue, which would thereby play an important role in shaping public opinion. In China, for instance, attitudes turned sharply negative following a 2012 scandal about a nutrition study involving genetically modified rice and Chinese children, which was brought to the fore by Greenpeace and widely reported with a narrative suggesting that genetically modified crops are instruments of Western control and imperialism. 15 Prior to that, Chinese newspaper attitudes had been either positive or neutral toward GMOs. 16 Media framing has also been strongly associated with a trend toward more negative public attitudes to GMOs in Russia in the years leading up to a ban imposed in 2016. 17 These are not all recent trends: one study found that in Hungary, media framing of the GM issue largely favored the ‘anti’ side between 2007 and 2009. 18

Media coverage of GMO issues does not arise in a vacuum. Instead, it reflects political, ideological, and economic contests in societies. In some cases, as in China, geopolitical anxieties can drive widespread public belief in conspiracy theories about Western aggression via genetic technologies. The Russian government, which is often accused of waging an information warfare campaign against the West, has also promoted fears and conspiracy theories about GMOs. A 2018 study found that the Russian state news networks RT and Sputnik produced many more articles on GMOs than Western media outlets, most of which were sharply negative. 19 Some of these Russian-promoted stories featured conspiracy theories that were unlikely to gain exposure in conventional news, such as one headline in 2016: “GMO mosquitoes could be cause of Zika outbreak, critics say.” 20

Negative coverage may also originate from groups ideologically opposed to genetic engineering, or NGOs that seek to raise campaign funds by spreading misinformation. This latter strategy has been termed the ‘monetization of disinformation’ and may raise millions of dollars per year for groups that employ this strategy as a fundraising tool. A recent study analyzing 95,000 online articles found that those receiving the most attention appeared not in conventional media but were published by “a small group of alternative health and pro-conspiracy sites.” 21

Much of the controversy now takes place in the social media sphere, where trolls and bots can increase polarization and spread misinformation exponentially. A 2018 study of the vaccine issue found that trolls and bots often supported both sides in order to amplify controversy and create “false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination.” 22

Our analysis suggests that traditional media coverage of GMOs is consistently and substantially more neutral or positive than public perceptions as reported from polling data. This finding is in keeping with the media’s traditional role of aiming for neutral or impartial coverage. Because monthly favorability ratings rise and fall as different stories break, there is only a weak long-term trend toward more favorable coverage in traditional media seen in our data.

The situation is somewhat different on social media. In social media, extreme or one-sided positions can pass unchallenged and strong statements, regardless of whether they are true or false, tend to be ‘liked’ or shared more often. Yet even in this ‘free for all’ environment, monthly values averaged in the 36-month time frame of the study show a robust long-term trend toward more positive social media coverage.

In volume terms, there was a significant increase from 2018 to 2020 in traditional media coverage of the GMO issue. There was a sharp downward trend in the volume of GMO-related posts on social media, however. This suggests that the GMO issue is perhaps becoming somewhat less salient over time in terms of public engagement. This decline could however also be due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have occupied the attention of social media users during 2020. It also suggests that while traditional media coverage of the issue is typically driven by events happening in the news cycle, social media commentators are less driven by mainstream news coverage of the issue. It is notable that traditional and social media visibility peaks do not tend to occur at the same time, suggesting that the debates operate somewhat independently of each other.

A familiar factor in the GMO conversation is the antipathy directed specifically toward Monsanto, with the company becoming a bogeyman for anti-GMO activists and its flagship ‘RoundupReady’ crops coming to symbolize overall objections to the technology. Though Monsanto has since been purchased by Bayer and its name retired, the stigma seems to remain. We found that coverage of Monsanto/Bayer in both traditional and social media is consistently and considerably more negative than coverage of GMOs overall. This likely reflects ongoing negative portrayals of the company regarding pesticides and issues of corporate control of seeds, and thus food. In some months over the two-year period of January 2018 through December 2019, almost the entirety of the social media conversation took a negative tone, though favorable spikes were also recorded both years. The fact that the Monsanto/Bayer conversation was substantially more negative in terms of social media sentiment analysis than other areas helps validate our methods, as it confirms what might be expected given our broader understanding of the debate.

Geographically, the United States dominates the GMO conversation, both in terms of volume and reach. This may be because the technology is widely employed in US agriculture, which also has a robust presence in traditional and social media. The conversation is generally favorable in the US, Africa, and South Asia, though it remains divided in the Philippines, where GM corn has been adopted but international controversies remain over the recent adoption of GM Golden Rice. In Africa, the conversation is most negative in Uganda. These differences may be due to the fact that Nigeria and Kenya have recently adopted GM crops, with farmers and media seeing the positive results of field trials, while Uganda still lacks a biosafety law that would permit introduction of GM crops.

Our analysis shows that traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, though that gap disappeared in 2020. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media.

Notably, the same positive favorability was observed in Africa, where countries are just beginning to adopt the technology. The favorable conversation in Kenya and Nigeria may be due to the fact that farmers have been able to witness field trials as well as plant GM seeds on their own farms. It may also be that anti-GMO activists lessen their activities in countries where the technology has been adopted, either turning to other issues or devoting their attention to countries that are still undecided.

Our analysis also found that cyborgs and bots represent about a third of the users engaged in the GMO social media debate. Furthermore, their posts are substantially more negative in sentiment toward GMOs than human accounts. This suggests that cyborgs and bots may be intentionally used by nefarious actors to sow dissent and make the GMO conversation appear more negative and polarized than it is.

The decline in volume of social media posts combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population, even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag biotech overall.

Despite these encouraging results, it is clear that the scientific community still faces major communications challenges in addressing gaps between traditional and social media debates and the actual scientific consensus around the safety and desirability of agricultural biotechnology. Although the situation appears to be improving, there is no guarantee that this will continue as the influence of negative sentiments and actors continues to weigh on the debate and skew public perceptions away from perspectives that are based on genuine scientific evidence.

Funding Statement

The Cornell Alliance for Science is funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A list of other donors can be found at https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/about/funders/. Cision, Inc. is a company that performs media analysis and provides other communication services for paying clients across a variety of sectors, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This study contains the authors’ objective analysis and may not reflect the views or attitudes of Cision or Cision’s clients. No other competing interests are declared by the authors.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Research Paper: Genetically Modified Organisms

How it works

Genetically modified organisms, otherwise referred to as GMOs, is a highly debated and researched topic throughout the world, however, highly prevalent in the United States today. It is plant, animals, or other organism in which their genetic makeup has been altered or modified by either genetic engineering or transgenic technology. GMOs are used either in the medical field or agriculturally, looking to cure diseases and create vaccines or attempt to get the healthiest or highest profit out a product. Prior to current research and for about 10,000 years, farmers have been selecting the most productive plants and seeds to use and essentially and unconsciously created a certain group over another.

Now only the most fruitful crops are present in society. The study of genes began in the 1860s with Gregor Mendel. His idea has grown to develop a full science behind genetics and great debates on the topic as well. The question as to if genetically engineering organisms are safe and plausible is a huge concern and topic with our developing world.

Modifications to organisms were performed for multiple reasons showing to have not only its benefits, as it has proves to have it negative effects. For medical purposes, GMO’s were used to recombinant DNA used to create important proteins. Also known as gene therapy, the gene is treaty in a specific way to alter it instead to combat diseases or disorders many people face on a global scale. In this process, it allows for the body to make these needed proteins and inject viruses that shows no harm. It starts off by inserting the DNA and working gene into the modified virus and infecting the patient’s cells with the virus carrying gene.

Depending on luck and probability, it is hopeful that the virus will insert healthy genes into cells in order to correct the problem. However, it is not only used in this field to cure, but diagnose disorders through genetic testing. Most often than not you can recognize a certain disorder due to its DNA sequence which is different from a regular gene. An example would be with CF allele as the genetic DNA sequence differs from normal allele. Some processes search for these changes in cutting sites of restriction enzymes, but in this process DNA complementary to the defective allele is used in order to separate between regular and modified. As well as in the medical field, GMO’s are commonly used as a means for personal identification with DNA fingerprinting. Because restriction fragments vary from person to person, DNA can be taken from an individual in order to determine whether or not it matches with the unknown. Restriction enzymes cut DNA and are later separated into bands by gel electrophoresis. This is used in multiple fields but are primary in wildlife conservation and forensic science. Similar genes may also be matched to find ancestry through different features such as the Y chromosome found in men. This is also used with patents as one-fifth of known genes in humans can be patented and go on to encourage new discoveries.

However, there is a complex science which stands behind the GMO process. There are transfer genes for certain traits between organisms. From this, DNA cells are used after being cut into pieces with restriction enzymes. There are specific base sequences as large molecules are broken down into hundreds or thousands separated by size. Following this, the polymerase chain reaction takes place with one end of the original strand of DNA adding on a short piece of complementary DNA. These smaller pieces, or primers, prepare the site for DNA polymerase to take place and work. Heat separates the strands of DNA and while cooling the primers begin to bond to the single strands. The DNA polymerase then continues to copy the DNA between primers. These copies then become the templates for more copies. The next step is transforming or altering the DNA by adding the DNA to become a part of the original genome of the cell. Another method is through genetic engineering in which genes are put into living cells. DNA sequences are built with genes to be put into the cell. Synthesizers then make shorter strips of DNA and joined to original DNA with DNA ligase. Plasmids are present in few bacteria and present as small circular DNA molecules. Start signals are put into place and when the cell copies the DNA it will also continue to copy the plasmid. The process of recombinant DNA makes it possible to change genetic makeup of organisms. Pairs of complementary DNA ar likely to bond despite origins of a different organism.

Transgenic organisms are made with recombinant DNA inserted into a genome of the host to modify the original makeup. It is hoped that the DNA from the first organisms will change the structure of the second. Many transgenic plants are changed using Agrobacterium with little DNA plasmid inserted to create tumors in the cell. The tumor producing gene will then turn off and be replaced with the recombinant DNA to transform the plant cells. For transgenic animals, DNA is injected into the nucleus of egg cells. The enzymes transfer new DNA into chromosomes of the host and the molecules are made with recombined ends. Cloning is another possibility making a group of identical cells from a single one. The single cell is taken from an adult organism and multiplied from there. Colonies are easily created with bacteria and microorganisms however, are much more complex and have a lower possibility in multicellular, animal cells. Genetic modifications has both both pros and cons taken into account during the debate on ethics. However, it is not debated to such of an extent in medicine as it is in agriculture due to the higher research and the ability to save lives on the spot. The argument is highly prevalent when dealing with food as it not only affects the environment, but long term effects on health also needs to be taken into account. Those for GM foods argues that less land and energy are used while lowering costs. Using less land is ideal to preserve nature, especially with the other debate on the idea of global warming. GM plants also prove to be insect resistant resulting in fewer chemicals and less pollution sprayed into the atmosphere and the chemicals absorbed in the soil. As for safety, it has been tested and seen to not affect humans in a harmful manner. For example, in Hawaii during the 1990’s, the Ringspot virus threatened to wipe out papayas but was able to be combated with GMOs with no side effects observed. Modifying the genetic makeup of plants also creates organisms resilient to climate change, important in a world where the temperature and land is changing at an increasing rate. Plants can be altered to take in more carbon to create a negative feedback loop to climate change.

While there are many arguable pros, there are plausible negative effects due to the large unknown section of GMOs. The main con is the questionable long-term usage. Because our world is changing at such a rapid rate, it cannot be guaranteed if GMO’s will prove to have problems later despite the lack of disturbance at the moment. Because GM plants are designed to kill and repel insects, it is possible for helpful insects to be. This can also prove to be a dangerous move for weaker end in the industry, with smaller or poor farmers to be put out of business. Terminator seeds would need also need to be created. Yet, the contrasting argument in this specific case of insects and pollution is that certain BT crops are engineered to be toxic only to specific insects and the washed off pesticides would be of no harm to humans. In current society, the federal regulations in place in the United States regarding GMO versus non Gm plants are no different. No extra precautions are put into place to ensure safety, although some states require labeling of GM foods. Many of the products consumers buy in stores have been genetically altered as they appear to be no different from local and natural foods. However, many against GMOs in the world today are protesting believing they have the right to know what they are buying and putting into their body without having to read the fine print or conduct further research on the origins of a product.

The ethics as to if we should be able to change genetic structures and go against nature is another highly debated topic. It is questionable if we should be able to alter the human genetics and provide future research on cloning humans or changing an individual’s sex and height. Every plant and animal is different from its prehistoric state due to selective breeding. It is argued that we are only continuing to help this process to acquire the most we can out of science. As presented by the World Health Organization, more than 250 million children of ages 4 to 5 do not have the sufficient amount of vitamin A and 2 million deaths and more than 500 thousand cases of blindness are connected to this lack of vitamin A. While many scientists argue that plants can be modified to carry a higher percentage of nutrients, certain critics such as Wendell Berry and Vandana Shiva argue that it is a solution created by industrialization only made to make GM crops to look positive. The main concern is that by changing genetic makeup, it goes against basic laws of nature and consequences will present itself in the future.

The debate of GMOs is not only present in laboratories and governments, but in religious places such as churches and areas of worship. Certain religions and people practicing these faiths believe in the use of GMOs as a promising solution was offered to help those in rural communities suffering from hunger and proper medical attention. However, it has been seen to be a problem in certain cultures, such as the Islamic religion. Islam forbids the consuming of pork and have been concerned is production of foods will contain genes from pigs, which is essentially still to be considered pork. Opposite to this is Jews as the studying or overall ethics of GMOs are accepted because there is no specific text prohibiting the use of GM. This is a hard topic to debate due to the different values every individual holds. Those who follow a certain set of rights, which were created centuries ago, are not sure whether or not genetically modifying structures are accepted as it was not an issue in the past. Therefore, it is left for the individual to decide mainly off of their opinion of nature and world issues pertaining to global warming and world hunger.

Personally, I am not against the use of GMOs after learning about the problems which face our world today in environmental science. Despite the devestations created by man, we also have the opportunity to fix it. There is no guaranteed solution at the moment however it is essential that we act face to reduce the stress we have put on the planet. Despite the changes it has undergone, the planet will survive, the question is regarding if we will be able to. Because GMOs have been studied to save lives and reduce population, I do not have anything specific against the principles and moral behind it. As for the issue of the long term damaging extent, I believe we will only ever be able to know about it if we truly embrace the use of GMOs. It is essential in medicine and may later prove to be just as important in agriculture. This will contribute to reducing world problems and because of the fast rate of which our world is changing, I do not think altering a portion will provide much concern if we do not learn how to drawback from our energy consuming ways.

Cite this page

Research Paper: Genetically modified organisms. (2019, Jan 19). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/research-paper-genetically-modified-organisms/

"Research Paper: Genetically modified organisms." PapersOwl.com , 19 Jan 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/research-paper-genetically-modified-organisms/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Research Paper: Genetically modified organisms . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/research-paper-genetically-modified-organisms/ [Accessed: 17 Apr. 2024]

"Research Paper: Genetically modified organisms." PapersOwl.com, Jan 19, 2019. Accessed April 17, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/research-paper-genetically-modified-organisms/

"Research Paper: Genetically modified organisms," PapersOwl.com , 19-Jan-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/research-paper-genetically-modified-organisms/. [Accessed: 17-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Research Paper: Genetically modified organisms . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/research-paper-genetically-modified-organisms/ [Accessed: 17-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

GMOs and Their Potential

Troy Springer

Senior Seminar

Thesis statement:

With an ever growing world population possibly reaching 9+ billion by 2050, how sustenance will be provided is a question that is often asked. The utilization of GMOs is a leading plan to help do this, not only in providing an efficient way of growing food, but also by providing a way to better help those who are malnourished to become healthy by providing a food source that covers a broader spectrum of nutrients.

I. Introduction

A. What is a GMO? B. How is a GMO created?

“Indoor” GMOs “Outdoor” GMOs

III. Concerns

Environment Health Issues

IV. Misconceptions

A. GMOs are not needed to feed the world B. GMOs will not benefit farmers C. The promotion of GMOs is only for the self-interest of transnational corporations

V. Ethics: Should GMOs even be used?

VI. Policy/Regulation: How can we control the use of GMOs?

VII. Conclusion

Introduction

What is a GMO?

A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a virus, bacterium, or more complex life-form in which the DNA has been altered for a particular purpose. Some of these purposes include: research into the nature of genes and biological processes, manufacturing animal proteins, correcting genetic defects, and making improvements to animals and plants ( Natural Environment Research Council ). Making improvements to animals and plants is a major motivation to produce GMOs. With a world population on its way to 9 plus billion by the year 2050, a viable option for sustenance production is needed. With this ever-growing world population there is a need for somehow controlling the amount of people born. China is one country which has dealt with their overcrowding problem, but it seems that many of the other countries of the world are not doing much if anything to control their own populations. Because of this lack of action in controlling the world population, the need is shifted to how we will provide for all those people. GMOs are a way in which we as a world population can better provide for ourselves so that everyone will have enough provisions to survive.

How is a GMO created?

GMOs have been created naturally for millions of years. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is one example of a natural genetic engineer because it is able to alter another organism’s DNA to benefit itself. This species of soil-dwelling bacteria infects plant cells with a piece of its own DNA, and when it is integrated with the plant’s chromosome, it uses the plant’s own cells to proliferate the population of the bacteria. The way in which the bacterium does this is through the use of its bacterial chromosome and a plasmid, which is also a DNA carrying structure. The bacterium infects the plant through wounds in the roots of stems, through which the plant is giving off chemical signals. These chemical signals set off a cascade of gene activity in the A. tumefaciens which direct a series of events required for the transfer of tDNA from the plasmid into the plant’s cells through the wounds of the plant. The tDNA then moves into the nucleus of the plant cell and becomes integrated into the plant chromosome ( Understanding GMOs ).

This procedure has also been performed successfully in the lab with dicots, broadleaf plants, soybeans and tomatoes for many years. Through this procedure, the desired gene and marker is inserted into the tDNA of the plasmid. Tissues of the organism are then transferred to a medium containing an antibiotic or herbicide in order to tell if the organism has successfully taken up the desired gene because only the tissues expressing the marker will survive. These tissues are then grown under controlled environmental conditions in tissue cultures containing nutrients and hormones so that whole plants are grown. When plants are grown and have produced seed, an evaluation of the progeny is done making sure that the desired traits have been passed on ( Understanding GMOs ).

A basic method in which we get specific genes integrated with another organism’s chromosome is as follows: Isolate the DNA from which selected gene is to be taken from and treat it with enzymes that will cut out that specific gene. These genes are then inserted into bacteria and grown into colonies being screened to be sure that the bacteria has accepted the gene. The most suitable carrier of the gene is then selected and grown exclusively. These are then sequenced and the genes are trimmed along with having DNA signals added before it is inserted into the DNA of another organism via virus, bacterium, plant or animal ( Natural Environment Research Council ).

Another mode to create GMOs in the lab is done through the use of a “gene gun”. This is a new method for in-vivo transformation of cells or organisms. This method shoots genes directly into plant cells and plant cell chloroplasts. DNA or RNA is coated onto small particles of gold or tungsten, and then shot directly into the plant tissue by a high pressure helium pulse ( Understanding GMOs ).

Creation of GMOs by humans hasn’t been a recent development. Humans have changed the genetic make-up of organisms, especially plants and animals, selecting for particular traits such as fast growth rates, and good seed production for centuries. We have done this through selective breeding of these organisms, which could be considered as a kind of evolution by natural selection. The new technologies that have been developed have taken a lot of the guess work out of this kind of selection. We now have much greater precision, being able to change a single gene instead of thousands which was involved with selective breeding ( Natural Environment Research Council ).

The uses of GMOs span a wide variety of applications. They can range from medicines to all sorts of foods, and with future research, they could be implemented in various other areas of our lives.

‘Indoor’ GMOs

‘Indoor’ GMOs produce medicines such as antibiotics, painkillers, vaccines and other substances such as insulin and growth hormones, but there are some food based products such as cheese and yogurt whose bacteria can be modified to change their production. Indoor GMOs don’t necessarily have changes in their end product; the modification is usually within the process of production. Since these products have such strict rules to follow in the laboratory where they are produced, these GMOs are not likely to be a hazard to the environment ( Natural Environment Research Council ).

‘Outdoor’ GMOs

‘Outdoor’ GMOs are those that have a possibility to improve existing plant crops, protect crops from pests and diseases, alter plants to produce novel products, control the reproduction of wild animals through contraceptive vaccines, solving environmental problems, and even treating genetic disorders. The motivations for producing GMOs are to help increase the efficiency of food production such as solving problems by creating drought-resistant plants, creating plants that can deal with pests that have become resistant to insecticides, or even providing helpful vaccines in common foods ( Natural Environmental Research Council ).

Major issues arise through the use of ‘outdoor’ GMOs to provide ways to feed a growing world population.

The major struggle against GMOs is the debate about whether they are safe or not. Those who are against the use of GMOs claim that our environment and health are at risk, while those in support do not believe that to be true.

Environment

An increased awareness has created an significant resistance regarding the use of GMOs in today’s world. One of the major points for those who are against the use of GMOs is due to the risk of gene flow. Gene flow, also known as gene migration is the transfer of genes from one population to another ( Gene-flow ). Those against GMOs regard this manual movement of genetic information as being wrong, and many times raise the term ‘playing God’.

Another point that many anti-GMO activists make is the fear of crossing GMOs with non-modified organisms, specifically plants. One example of this could involve the crossing of crops with their weedy relatives so that the traits are expressed in the crop are expressed in the weed, creating some sort of ‘super weed’ which would be resistant to all control measures. This crossing has been shown to occur, that traits like resistance to an herbicide or resistance to a group of pests can be passed from crop to weed through the crop plant’s pollen. What hasn’t been proven yet is whether this crossing results in these so called ‘super weeds’, being resistant to all control measures. It is not clear that this is a possibility because the widespread use of a single herbicide or insecticide puts pressure on the weed or pest to adapt to that particular control measure. For example, the extensive use of glyphosate (Roundup) might result in glyphosate-resistant weeds, but the farmer then has other control measures which he could switch to ( Information on GMOs, 2000 ). There have been a few cases in which glyphosate resistant weeds were found in Australia , Malaysia , and possibly California , but none of these cases are related to GM crops ( Morton, et al, 2001 ).

Regarding insects and their ability to become resistant to pesticides, it is very possible for them to do so with Bt crops. Bt crops are crops that kill insects by expressing toxic proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis ( Shelton , 2000 ). Since these crops express these proteins at all times throughout the entire plant, the insects do not have to be in a certain area of the crop to be exposed to the pesticide. To try to keep resistance from developing, farmers are required to plant refuges of non-Bt plants within the crop, which should help keep populations of insects susceptible to the Bt toxin ( Information on GMOs, 2000 ). Studies regarding the effectiveness of these non-Bt refuges have shown that fields containing isolated refuges of non-Bt plants are far more effective at suppressing insect resistance than fields in which non-Bt crops are mixed among Bt plants, and add that spraying a refuge with a different insecticide may actually increase the likelihood of the emergence of resistance ( Shelton, 2000 ).

Health Issues

There are also possible health hazards that could accompany the use of GMOs. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, the head of Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in Milton Keynes , UK believes that gene technology may well ruin our food supply, destroy biodiversity and unleash pandemics of antibiotic resistant infectious diseases. Many of these allegations are only based upon theories and speculations; there has been evidence to support both sides in the GMO debate. Allergies are a main point in the debate, regarding what could possibly happen, or is happening right now in today’s food products. One GMO, the Pioneer Hi-Bred soybeans with a Brazil-nut protein added, has been abandoned because of this possible allergic-reaction threat. One advantage for the companies creating these GMOs is to consider that 90 percent of our food allergies are in response to only eight foods: peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soybeans, shell fish, fish, and wheat. If special attention is taken in where donor genes are taken from, the problem with creation of new allergenic food can be bypassed. Since only a single or very few genes are normally involved with genetic engineering, it makes it even easier to test for possible allergic reactions because each gene encodes a single protein product, which can then be easily tested for its allergenic effects ( Information on GMOs, 2000 ). The use of GMOs has even produced, at least one example, that allergic reactions have been lessened. The ultimate goal of doing this is to help create safer food, so accidental ingestion of hidden allergens will not cause dangerous reactions ( Using GE to Reduce Allergic Reactions, 2002) .

Another possible concern is the idea of the modified product being antibiotic resistant, a trait used to tell during the selection process that the gene had been incorporated. What is often thought of and is a common misconception is that the presence of antibiotic resistance marker genes means the GMO produces antibiotic. The consumer of the GMO does not receive a dose of antibiotic when they eat the product. But a possible scenario could be that if food from GMOs becomes widely available, there is the potential for antibiotic resistance genes to be present in many everyday items in our diet. This is a concern for some because of the uncertainty of what this extra DNA in our systems will do. What is commonly overlooked is that DNA is present in the cells of all living organisms, including every plant and animal used for food, and along with this DNA, incidental food contaminants are also consumed. This leads to the conclusion that the large amount of DNA that passes the gastro-intestinal tract daily indicates that DNA itself is not essentially toxic to humans. Knowing this, it should also be made known that the DNA that makes up an antibiotic resistance gene has no unusual composition compared to other genes and so, its presence poses no more health risk than the other DNA that is ingested ( Read, 2000 ). So the DNA itself is not what poses a potential threat to us, but it is proteins that are transcribed from this DNA and we also would consume these if we were to eat GMO foods.

Another misunderstanding about GMO foods is to think of them as breaking down differently in our bodies. Most proteins rapidly degrade upon consumption and exposure to the mammalian digestive tract. Our gastro-intestinal tract is specifically designed to digest proteins by conversion to amino acids and small peptides that are absorbed by the intestinal tract. Any risk that could be possible would depend on the daily intake and the stability of the protein in the gastro-intestinal tract. This would mean that the foods that carry the greatest risks would be those that are consumed uncooked or unprocessed. We can find out if a protein is likely to be safe or not for consumption by examining proteins of the same function that have been safely consumed at similar levels, and for those proteins that are not similar to common proteins found in our diet, we can determine their safety by assessing their potential toxicity and allergic response, all of which can easily be determined through examining the source, amino acid sequence and function of the gene product ( Read, 2000 ). Both sides of the debate agree that new and better methods to evaluate GMO foods are needed. We need to decide whether long term feeding studies are necessary to provide greater information on potential allergic reactions and toxicity, all of which are, at the present time, unknown.

Misconceptions

GMOs are not needed to feed the world.

The major thought process that is derived through this statement is that people are hungry because they are poor, not because there’s not enough food. So if they can’t even afford to buy conventional food, how would they be able to afford GM food? This is incorrect. People are hungry because they cannot locally produce adequate food to provide for themselves. Reasons for this may include the damage of crops by insects with the inability to purchase insecticides, or crops cannot grow due to drought or lack of fresh water. If those who were affected by insects were to grow a Bt crop, they would not need to buy insecticides because the plant is producing a form of one, allowing for a greater yield to be grown ( Morton, et al, 2001 ).

For those who are lacking fresh water to irrigate their crops there may be a solution available in the near future. Trials are now being held with ‘eco-friendly’ genetic engineering developing plants that can thrive in salt-rich soils and hibernate in conditions of extreme cold or drought. This type of genetics is considered ‘eco-friendly’ because of the way scientists are going about modifying the plants. They have studied how plants protect themselves from environmental stresses, and then they enhance these natural defense systems by amplifying the relevant genes. One gene was found to help plants grow in soils with high salt content; the thinking is that with this gene amplified, the plant will be able to pump salt out of their roots before it can damage them. What the company that is developing these plants would like to ultimately do is to develop plants that can use sea water as an irrigation source. A third of the world’s irrigated land is deemed useless because it contains too much salt. One option to try to solve this is to flush the area with more water, however when water is a scarcity, this is not an option. This is one problem that a large number of farmers throughout the world need to deal with. Over 7.3 billion dollars is in lost yields in the U.S. alone every year due to salt-rich soils ( Murphy, 2004 ).

GMOs will not benefit farmers

Another misconception is that farmers will not benefit from planting GM crops. With today’s low market price for many crops, and farmers with high overhead costs, GMOs are one way in which they can help lower their costs, and even improve their yield, all while preserving farmland. The use of GMOs has been proven to reduce the need for chemical pesticides and tillage, which can cause soil erosion. In the U.S. alone, cotton farmers have cut their insecticide use by about two million pounds (12%) since GM seeds were introduced in 1996. Since fewer pesticides are needed, crops can grow by using less tillage, conserving soil, fuel and water, which would ultimately save money ( Genetically Modified Organisms, 1999 ). Even the former leader of Greenpeace, director Patrick Moore agrees that there is potential for GMOs in his statement that “genetic engineering is a good way to reduce humans’ impact on the environment by increasing yields of key food crops, thus reducing the amount of land used for farming, along with reducing the need for pesticides ( Public ‘Misled’…, 2001 ).” So, if farmers can reduce the amount of land they use for farming along with reducing the costs of pesticides, fuel and water, all while increasing their yield, they will be producing at a lower cost, creating more funds for themselves.

GMOs are only promoted for corporate greed and self interest

In today’s world, there are many things that are economically driven. Companies need to make a profit in order to survive from fiscal year to fiscal year. So, naturally there will be some profit gained by the use of GMOs. There are examples though, where this is not the case. One such example is through the production of Golden Rice. Golden Rice is a variety that would provide the consumer with a supplement of vitamin A. The argument has been raised whether Golden Rice will actually help people that lack vitamin A in their diets. However, the promotion of Golden Rice stands to try to help those who are deficient in vitamin A. The fact that someone tried to produce a new plant variety that has no commercial benefits to the transnational corporations and the fact that agreements have been drawn up to distribute this plant for free proves that this technology has the potential to work for the poor and malnourished. In fact, Golden Rice counters many of the arguments that those against GMOs raise including that it is not developed by and for industry, that those who benefit are the poor and disadvantaged, that it does not create any new dependencies, that it can be grown without any additional inputs, that it can be resown every year from the saved harvest, as well as showing so far no conceptual negative effects on the environment or risk to consumer health ( Morton, et al, 2001 ).

Ethics: Should GMOs even be used?

When considering this question, it should be remembered that “science and technology have provided great benefits in the past and are likely to do so in the future, as long as they are properly managed and applied” ( Administration and Finance Department, 2000 ). It is when they are abused that problems arise. There are many potential benefits that could very well come to be through the use of GMOs. These include: the increase of yield and quality of crops which would help lessen strain on the environment, and a possible source to treat malnourishment, even providing helpful vaccines through the consumption of common foods, especially for those in third world countries.

But with all of these possible benefits, there comes concern of the unknown. It comes down to there not being precise answers of what kind of side effects would come from the use of GMOs. This though, should not be a stumbling block for the cause. It should be an encourager for all those working in the field, and the rest of the public to help support such research.

Although there are possibilities of risks created by GMOs, there normally are risks when new technologies are created. The society as a whole or the scientific community needs to weigh these risks against the benefits. There are many technologies today that could possibly cause dangers to our health, including electricity, cars and planes. However, we as a society have agreed to take the chance because the benefits outweigh the risks. To determine whether risks do outweigh the benefits an expert committee established by the FDA concluded that the safety of a food depends upon its properties, not the process used to produce it. This means that the safety of GMO foods should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the “decisions should be made by consensus, not by unanimity”. Waiting until everyone agrees is the same as eliminating the possible uses of GMOs ( Information on GMOs, 2000 ). If the uses of GMOs were eliminated, so would the benefits that would come along. We as a society cannot forgo such an important leap of biotechnology and still expect the world as it functions now, to be able to provide for its entire population.

The threat of 9 plus billion is quickly approaching, and the use of family planning does not seem to be an answer that a majority of us in developed nations want to swallow ( UNFPA, 2004 ). A solution that we are facing now is implementing GMOs more widespread, but further research needs to be done so that we will be able to gain as much advantage as possible out of their use while reducing the problems.

Policy/ Regulation: How can we control the use of GMOs in the US ?

GMOs are regulated in the US by the FDA, USDA and EPA, but there is still grumblings that the policies and regulations set out by these agencies are not strict enough. The FDA sets safety standards for the GM foods, and requires labeling in cases where nutritional content is altered, if the toxin level has increased, if a new substance is a food additive, or if the protein made by the gene added is an allergen. The USDA grants permission to plant GM crops, authorizes interstate movement/ importation, and approves petitions for non-regulated status. The EPA regulates the distribution, sale and sets or exempts tolerances of pesticides used on the GM crops. Through further research, these governmental agencies will continue to try to promote the greatest of common good ( DiFonzo, 2000 ).

I believe that GMOs are a very direct way in which we will be able to answer the problem of over crowding in the near future. I also believe that it will be a way that we will be able to provide necessary vaccines and other medications for those in need at a cost much lower than they are being produced now. What the unknown holds for risks doesn’t seem to me to be great enough to over power all the benefits that are possible. I do believe that more research needs to be done on the effects as well as prevention of possible gene flow. These, I believe, are not out of our reach. I am very confident that we will safely make a transition from being very cautious about GMOs, to welcoming them open-armed into our everyday lives, because we will recognize that they will be essential for sustaining life on this planet.

(n.d.) Gene flow. Retrieved October 4, 2003 from: http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/gene_flow.html

(n.d.). Understanding Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved September 28, 2004 from University of Washington website: http://courses.washington.edu/z490/gmo/

(1999, December) Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) . Retrieved October 30, 2004 from: http://www.ift.org/pdfs/gmoback.pdf

(2000, November). Information on Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved September 28, 2004 , from the Ohio State University website: http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/

(2001, February) Public ‘Misled’ on GE Risk (Summary). Retrieved November 3, 2004 from: http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/2001/february2001/250201.html

(2002, October) Using Genetic Engineering to Reduce Allergic Reactions (Summary) . Retrieved November 1, 2004 from: http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/summaries/display.php3?NewsID=274

Administration and Finance Department. (2000) Report of the Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture . Retrived November 6, 2004 from: http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/X9600E/x9600e06.htm

DiFonzo, Chris. (2000, April) Transgenic Crops. Retrieved November 7, 2004 from: http://www.msue.msu.edu/valueadded/images/sld014.htm

Morton, R &Roush, R &Parrott, W. (2001, July). Response to GM Food Myths . Retrieved October 3, 2004 from AgBioWorld’s website: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/myths.html

Murphy, Paul. (2004, May) Gene firm pioneers desert crops. Retrieved October, 23, 2004 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1221662,00.html

Natural Environment Research Council (n.d.). GMOs and the Environment: Scientific certainties and uncertainties. Retrieved October 3, 2004 from: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/gmo/

Read, Deborah. (2000, December) Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from: http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/Publications/pdfs/ER-GI-01-1.pdf

Shelton, Anthony M. (2000, March) Bt Crops on Trial. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/gmo/pr-bt-crops-on-trial.htm

UNFPA. (2004) Population Growth is Still an Issue . Retrieved November 25, 2004 from: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch1/page7.htm#1

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

Published on January 11, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on August 15, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . It usually comes near the end of your introduction .

Your thesis will look a bit different depending on the type of essay you’re writing. But the thesis statement should always clearly state the main idea you want to get across. Everything else in your essay should relate back to this idea.

You can write your thesis statement by following four simple steps:

• Start with a question
• Write your initial answer
• Develop your answer
• Refine your thesis statement

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is a thesis statement, placement of the thesis statement, step 1: start with a question, step 2: write your initial answer, step 3: develop your answer, step 4: refine your thesis statement, types of thesis statements, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about thesis statements.

A thesis statement summarizes the central points of your essay. It is a signpost telling the reader what the essay will argue and why.

The best thesis statements are:

• Concise: A good thesis statement is short and sweet—don’t use more words than necessary. State your point clearly and directly in one or two sentences.
• Contentious: Your thesis shouldn’t be a simple statement of fact that everyone already knows. A good thesis statement is a claim that requires further evidence or analysis to back it up.
• Coherent: Everything mentioned in your thesis statement must be supported and explained in the rest of your paper.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

The thesis statement generally appears at the end of your essay introduction or research paper introduction .

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts and among young people more generally is hotly debated. For many who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education: the internet facilitates easier access to information, exposure to different perspectives, and a flexible learning environment for both students and teachers.

You should come up with an initial thesis, sometimes called a working thesis , early in the writing process . As soon as you’ve decided on your essay topic , you need to work out what you want to say about it—a clear thesis will give your essay direction and structure.

You might already have a question in your assignment, but if not, try to come up with your own. What would you like to find out or decide about your topic?

For example, you might ask:

After some initial research, you can formulate a tentative answer to this question. At this stage it can be simple, and it should guide the research process and writing process .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Now you need to consider why this is your answer and how you will convince your reader to agree with you. As you read more about your topic and begin writing, your answer should get more detailed.

In your essay about the internet and education, the thesis states your position and sketches out the key arguments you’ll use to support it.

The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education because it facilitates easier access to information.

In your essay about braille, the thesis statement summarizes the key historical development that you’ll explain.

The invention of braille in the 19th century transformed the lives of blind people, allowing them to participate more actively in public life.

A strong thesis statement should tell the reader:

• Why you hold this position
• What they’ll learn from your essay
• The key points of your argument or narrative

The final thesis statement doesn’t just state your position, but summarizes your overall argument or the entire topic you’re going to explain. To strengthen a weak thesis statement, it can help to consider the broader context of your topic.

These examples are more specific and show that you’ll explore your topic in depth.

Your thesis statement should match the goals of your essay, which vary depending on the type of essay you’re writing:

• In an argumentative essay , your thesis statement should take a strong position. Your aim in the essay is to convince your reader of this thesis based on evidence and logical reasoning.
• In an expository essay , you’ll aim to explain the facts of a topic or process. Your thesis statement doesn’t have to include a strong opinion in this case, but it should clearly state the central point you want to make, and mention the key elements you’ll explain.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . Everything else you write should relate to this key idea.

The thesis statement is essential in any academic essay or research paper for two main reasons:

• It gives your writing direction and focus.
• It gives the reader a concise summary of your main point.

Without a clear thesis statement, an essay can end up rambling and unfocused, leaving your reader unsure of exactly what you want to say.

Follow these four steps to come up with a thesis statement :

• Ask a question about your topic .
• Write your initial answer.
• Develop your answer by including reasons.
• Refine your answer, adding more detail and nuance.

The thesis statement should be placed at the end of your essay introduction .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, August 15). How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/thesis-statement/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.