“We are what we eat.” Everyone has heard this famous quote or a variation of it, but what do we actually eat? Over the past years a new type of food called Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) has flooded the food market. This new type of food is designed to better resist the climate and to contain more vitamins and minerals for the consumer, yet the debate is still ongoing: are GMOs harmful or helpful? The following text will present both sides of the argument: the GMOs activists and the anti-GMOs activists’ views. Then I will explain why I support the GMOs activists.
To begin with, GMOs activists, sharing a mechanistic worldview, assure us that the genetically modified crops used make the food in our plates are …show more content…
They argue that the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has discovered through animal testing that GMOs to lead dangerous health risks from accelerated aging and immune system problems passing by organ damaging and infertility. According to the physicists of the AAEM, there is a direct relation between GMOs and these health problems (Smith 48). In fact, in 2009, the AAEM urged all doctors to prescribe all their patients non-GMOs diets as, according to them, many of the cases where doctors could not identify the cause of the problem were caused by GMOs (Smith 48). Could one of these problem be allergies? Because another research discovered that GMOs could accidently transfer allergens from one type of food to another, like it was done with the Brazil nuts that contaminated GMOs soybean (“Should You Worry...” 5). Whatever the case is, the AAEM also discovered that the resistant genes of soybean could be transferred to bacterias inside our intestines, meaning that the dangerous proteins in GMOs can potentially be reproduced in our organism even once we have stopped eating GMOs (Smith, 48). Aside of the dangers of GMOs, they are still not the most effective way to produce food. According to Colin Tudge, a British scientist and writer, it has been proved that the best way to farm is the traditional way in which …show more content…
When one tries to prove that GMOs are safe, the other does the same to prove the contrary. However, there is one point that both side agree on and that is that GMOs are already on the American market. Starting from that point we can make our own observations. For instance, if it is true that we have been eating GMOs for the past years then surely we will have been affected by its health risks if there are such risks. The problem is that there has been no symptoms of any sort for the last few years neither for me or anyone in my environment just like was observed by the scientists of the National Academies of Sciences, Mechanics and Medicine (“The Verdict on GMO…” 71). Now I do not claim that GMOs can save us from world hunger, but one thing is sure, they are not dangerous for our health. I do not agree with everything said by the GMOs activists, but I tend to believe them more because the basis of the argument, the safety of GMOs, is most likely to be true. I also tend to believe them more after Lynas’ interview for he witnessed the views of both sides making him, more or less an objective source, and sided with the GMOs activists (“GMOS: A Solution or…” 131-132). Thus, I find myself adopting, the pro-GMOs position for I cannot see any dangers in