“The GM debate is
over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe. …
You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food. So
said Mark Lynas, the British environmentalist, who helped launch the anti-GMO
movement in the 1990s" (Popoff 1).
The term "eat local" holds several different meanings such as: supporting small businesses, consuming locally grown produce, saving the environment, etc., all with the goal of building a strong locally based food economy. The "locavore" is a person with a strong belief in consuming only locally produced organic food. Produce that is processed or genetically modified will be shunned by these "locavores" for many different reasons such as: health, environmental impact, dislike of big industry, and being the in-thing to do. In this article I will explain why locavores are not achieving any meaningful change in the world by their consumption of local produce.
Popular gathering grounds for locavores include: Whole
Foods Market, over-priced coffee shops, urban cafes (all consisting of jumbled
writing chalkboard menus).
(Sunshine Deli of Virginia Menu)
1. "Locavores" claim that eating local organic
produce will save the environment.
"An
Oxford University meta-analysis of 71 peer-reviewed studies showed that,
because organic farms use more land to grow the same amount of food, they erase
their environmental benefit and are in some ways worse than conventional
farming" (Kloor 3). GMO crops require less land, which means less environmental impact and more food.
2. Saving the forests?
"Researchers
at the University of Minnesota..., found that organic farms grow
only around two thirds of the same amount of food, per acre, as conventional
farms, meaning that they need one and a half times the land of conventional
crops" (Kloor 7). Less forests will be torn down with the use of GMO crops.
3. At the current rate of food production including GMOs and organic produce, the world will require 70% more food in the next 30 years.
If this were to happen it would lead to catastrophic destruction of the world's forests. Attempting to accomplish this via organic produce and without improvement in genetic engineering would be even more disastrous. The world doesn't only need the existence of genetic engineering, it also needs genetic engineering to improve.
If this were to happen it would lead to catastrophic destruction of the world's forests. Attempting to accomplish this via organic produce and without improvement in genetic engineering would be even more disastrous. The world doesn't only need the existence of genetic engineering, it also needs genetic engineering to improve.
4. Contrary to popular belief, organic foods are not necessarily healthier than their genetically modified counterparts. In fact, many GMOs are modified to be more nutrient dense and suited for human consumption and digestion than organic foods.
According to scientists at Stanford University, "fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli" (Chang 2). There are no proven health problems associated with GMOs as of the present.
5. Did you know that genetically modified foods and produce are far less expensive than their organic counterparts?
If you had
any negative thoughts against GMOs before reading this blog, I hope you have
had a change in heart after reading. Organics aren't bad at all, but to shun
genetic engineering and its benefits is ignorant. The world will not improve
just because you have the privilege of purchasing organic from your local
farmer's market. There are others who do not have the luxury of "food choice" in this
world, but are lucky to have food due to genetic engineering. In the end, eating organic really isn't better then eating genetically
modified, it's just a choice.
“People who want to
stick with organic are entitled to—but they should not stand in the way of
others who would use science to find more efficient ways to feed billions”
(Mark Lynas).
Sources:
Bosch, Torie. "Leading Environmental Activist’s Blunt
Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMOs." Slate Magazine.
Slate, 3 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Chang, Kenneth. "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages
of Organic Meat and Produce." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 03 Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Kloor, Keith. "Why Organic Advocates Should Love GMOs -
Collide-a-Scape | DiscoverMagazine.com." CollideaScape.
Discover Magazine, 12 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Popoff, Mischa. "Organics versus GMO: Why the
Debate?" Genetic Literacy Project. Genetic Literacy Project,
15 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.
Ch
Alex’s persuasive purpose is to confront the locavore’s main arguments against GMOs. His blog works to expose the ignorance of people against GMOs. The use of statistics and facts are used equally to either disprove GMOs negative effects or to paint GMOs in a positive light. The blog explores certain misconceptions by exposing false stats. The research incorporated into the blog works as an appeal to logic. This blog logically exposes the potential set backs of organic foods to highlight the benefits of GMOs. Ethos is used often when quoting notable research facilities such as Oxford University and University of Minnesota. Alex effectively achieves his persuasive purpose by using a lot of contrasts. He contrasts the GMO vs organic foods the most. He makes a point to show the dangers of not embracing GMOs.The blog also uses effective imagery to improve his overall argument. Although this blog effectively achieves its persuasive purpose it can be improved. He could improve the blog by reevaluating the format of the numbered headings and expanding on the information of each section. He could explain the quotes better, making sure they are introduced and explained properly. In the end his argument is for a choice in the matter. He doesn’t argue for either extreme (organic vs GMO) but rather both sides to understand that it is a choice.
ReplyDelete