GMO Reasoning Web
Issue or Problem: ​What are “GMO” foods? Are they good or bad? Are they unsafe?
Purpose/Goal (​What is each side’s goal/purpose for the issue?)
Side 1​: To show that GMO foods are bad and unsafe to consume.
Point of View (​What is a perspective held by each side of the issue?​)
Side 1​: GMO foods are genetically modified foods that have been
marketed as bad. Not only are GMO foods unsafe to eat, there is also
environmental damage caused to grow them.
Evidence/Data (​What evidence/data does either side use to further their argument?​)
Side 1​:
- The percentage of food allergies in the United States in
children under the ages of 18 have increased by 1.4 percent
in the course of a decade.
- GMO foods increase the use of herbicide, a form of
pesticide, which will cause harm to our body when the food
is consumed.
- By growing plants or raising livestock in environmental
conditions that normally wouldn’t support them, there is the
potential of irrevocably damaging that environment. This is
often seen through GMO crossbreeding – weeds, for
example, that can be crossed with GMO plants can often
become resistant to herbicides, creating the need for more
GMO efforts.
Concepts and Ideas (​What are some of the concepts/ideas that are present and shape each side’s thinking?​)
Side 1​:
- Food allergies are a growing problem in the United States.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), food allergies in children under 18 years of age have
increased; from 3.4 percent between 1997 and 1999 to 5.1
percent between 2009 and 2011.
- GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds,
insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms.
They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are
unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating
Side 2: ​To show that GMO foods are safe to consume and have good
qualities to eating it as well.
Side 2:​ GMO foods are genetically modified foods that are safe to eat.
They are not harmful, but are actually have more nutrition benefits.
Side 2:
- The GMO crops in our food system don’t improve on the
crops’ yields, but have helped farmers protect yields from
pests and weeds.
- There has been no found effects or signs of danger from
interbreeding between GMO crops and wild relatives.
- The economic benefits to farmers have been documented,
with indivisual varying results.
- Ongoing public conversations about GMO crops and related
issues should be characterized by public participation.
-
Side 2:
- Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can resist antibiotics, making
them hard to kill. According to the CDC, antibiotic-resistant
germs infect two million people each year. Those infections
kill at least 23,000 people per year.
- Scientists often modify seeds using antibiotic-resistant genes
in the genetic engineering process. Some people wonder if
there’s a link between these GM foods and rising rates of
antibiotic resistant bacteria. No studies have confirmed this
 habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down
50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause
birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine
disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low
doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North
Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide
tolerant genes on to weeds.
- -
Assumptions (​What assumptions does each side make to further their argument? Hint: How might they manipulate the data?​)
Side 1​:
- People are obsessed with the idea that GMOs are
“unnatural.” According to this myth, members of the public
are concerned about GMOs because they think that genetic
modification is ‘unnatural’. They do not realise that humans,
through breeding, have been manipulating the genetic
makeup of crops and farm animals for 10 000 years. GMOs
were indeed frequently characterised as ‘unnatural’ by focus
group participants. They expressed the feeling that directly
modifying the genome was qualitatively different from any
previously used technique. A common viewpoint was that
we have previously only been crossing already existing
organisms, while we are now also creating novel life-forms
that would not have existed otherwise. Thus, genetic
engineering techniques were described as ‘pushing Nature
beyond its limits’, and were thought to ‘upset the
equilibrium of Nature’. This was related to the idea that
scientists do not know or understand the full extent of their
work, and cannot anticipate the long-term consequences of
their actions on ecosystems, human health and social
relations.
Inferences (​What solution/conclusion is offered to solve the problem?​)
Side 1​:
- There must be labels on GM foods to inform the buyer of the
product they are buying.
Implications/Consequences (​What are the consequences if each side got their way? Hint: Could be an assumption from the opposing
viewpoint​)
Side 1​:
claim, but more research is needed.
- By the year 2050, the human population on our planet is
expected to top 10 billion people. This means we’ll need
more food to be produced with our existing resources in
order to support this increase. GMOs give us the potential to
do so without changing the cost structures of food.
Side 2:
- According to this myth, people demand ‘zero risk’, which is
not realistic as we all face risks in our daily activities. If we
had applied a zero risk policy in the past, we would not have
developed technologies such as the steam engine, electricity
or the motorcar. focus group participants never demanded
‘zero risk’. They were perfectly aware that their lives are full
of risks that need to be counterbalanced against each other
and against the potential benefits. Rather than zero risk, what
they demanded was a more realistic assessment of risks by
regulatory authorities and GMO producers. The participants
found expert statements—asserting that there are no
risks—disconcerting and untrustworthy.
-
Side 2:
- GM foods must pass a series of tests to prove that the food is
safe to consume.
Side 2:
 - There wouldn’t be enough food to support the entire world
population.
-
Claim:
GMO foods are genetically modified organisms which have been shown to both be safe and unsafe to consume, with good and bad.
Evidence:
Food allergies are a growing problem in the United States. According
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), food
allergies in children under 18 years of age have increased; from 3.4
percent between 1997 and 1999 to 5.1 percent between 2009 and
2011.
A large factor of GM foods is consumer acceptance. This is
conditioned by the risk of introducing food processed through
technology that they might hardly understand. In a study conducted in
Spain, the conclusion was that the introduction of GM foods into
markets would’ve been accompanied by policies that guaranteed
consumer safety, thus allowing a decrease in consumer-perceived
risk, concretely relating to health. Tsirogiannis et al. (​2011​)
conducted a study identified the factors that affected consumers
purchasing behaviors towards food products that were GM free in a
European region, more precisely in the Prefecture of
Drama-Kavala-Xanthi. Field interviews conducted in a random
selected group consisting of 337 consumers in 2009. Principal
components analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to identify the
factors that affect people in preferring consuming products that are
GM Free. The factors that influence people in the study area to buy
GM Free products were the products’ certification as GM Free or
organic product, interest about the protection of the environment and
nutrition value, marketing issues and price and quality. Furthermore,
cluster and discriminant analysis identified two groups of consumers;
those influenced by the product price, quality and marketing aspects
and those interested in product’s certification and environmental
protection.
While GM crops have shown signs of hazard, they are tightly
regulated by several government bodies. The European Food Safety
Authority have detailed requirements for a full risk assessment of GM
plants. In the United States, the Food and Drug Agency, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are all
involved in the regulatory process for GM crop approval.
Consequently, GM plants undergo extensive safety testing prior to
commercialization. Even with extensive safety precautions, two
examples are frequently quoted about the GM crops’ safety regarding
- More herbicide would be used in the creation of GM foods.
-
Evidence:
While there has been issues dealing with health and GMO, there has
been a myth that GM foods are “unnatural.” According to this myth,
members of the public are concerned about GMOs because they think
that genetic modification is ‘unnatural’. They do not realise that
humans, through breeding, have already been manipulating the
genetic makeup of crops and farm animals for 10 000 years. GMOs
were frequently characterised as ‘unnatural’ by focus group
participants. They expressed their feelings that directly modifying the
genome was qualitatively different from any previously used
technique. A common viewpoint was that only existing organisms
had been crossed, while creating novel life-forms should not have
existed. Thus, genetic engineering techniques were described as
‘pushing Nature beyond its limits.’ This was related to the idea that
scientists didn’t understand the full extent of their work, and couldn’t
anticipate the long-term consequences of their actions on ecosystems,
human health, and economy.
At present, there are several GM crops used as food sources. As of
now, there are no GM animals approved for use as food, but a GM
salmon has been proposed for FDA approval. In several cases, the
product is directly consumed as food, but most of the time the crops
that have been genetically modified are sold as commodities, further
processed into food ingredients.
When looking at the uses of GM crops, there needs to be an
understanding of how GMO feed the world. The world's population is
predicted to double over the next 40 years, 95% of individuals being
born in developing countries. It is estimated that to meet these
increased demands, food production must increase by at least 40%
while facing the decreasing fertile lands and water resources. GM
plant technologies are one of a number of different approaches that
are being developed to combat these problems.
its allergenicity. A project devoted to developing genetically modified
peas by adding a protein from beans was abandoned after it was
shown that the GM peas caused a lung allergy in mice. Soybeans
engineered to express a Brazil nut protein was withdrawn from
production after it was also found to be allergenic in tests.

Reasoning: Reasoning:

(embedded in evidence) (embedded in evidence)

 Question: ​What are “GMO” foods? Are they good or bad? Are they unsafe?

GMO foods are genetically modified organisms which have been shown to both be safe and unsafe to consume, with good and bad.

Many GM foods have been viewed negatively because of its impact on the environment and one’s health. A large factor of GM foods is
consumer acceptance. This is conditioned by the risk of introducing food processed through technology that they might hardly understand. In a
study conducted in Spain, the conclusion was that the introduction of GM foods into markets would’ve been accompanied by policies that
guaranteed consumer safety, thus allowing a decrease in consumer-perceived risk, concretely relating to health. Tsirogiannis et al. (​2011​)
conducted a study identified the factors that affected consumers purchasing behaviors towards food products that were GM free in a European
region, more precisely in the Prefecture of Drama-Kavala-Xanthi. Field interviews conducted in a random selected group consisting of 337
consumers in 2009. Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to identify the factors that affect people in preferring
consuming products that are GM Free. The factors that influence people in the study area to buy GM Free products were the products’
certification as GM Free or organic product, interest about the protection of the environment and nutrition value, marketing issues and price and
quality. Furthermore, cluster and discriminant analysis identified two groups of consumers; those influenced by the product price, quality and
marketing aspects and those interested in product’s certification and environmental protection. With so many factors that would need to be
considered regarding GM foods, there still is hesitation on the safety of these products.

Food allergies are a growing problem in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), food
allergies in children under 18 years of age have increased; from 3.4 percent between 1997 and 1999 to 5.1 percent between 2009 and 2011.While
GM crops have shown signs of hazard, they are tightly regulated by several government bodies. The European Food Safety Authority have
detailed requirements for a full risk assessment of GM plants. In the United States, the Food and Drug Agency, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are all involved in the regulatory process for GM
crop approval. Consequently, GM plants undergo extensive safety testing prior to commercialization. However, even with extensive safety
precautions, two examples are frequently quoted about the GM crops’ safety regarding its allergenicity. A project devoted to developing
genetically modified peas by adding a protein from beans was abandoned after it was shown that the GM peas caused a lung allergy in mice.
Soybeans engineered to express a Brazil nut protein was withdrawn from production after it was also found to be allergenic in tests. With these
evidences of the results GM crops cause, it may seem that the methods of growing crops have regressed.

While there has been issues dealing with health and GMO, there has been a myth that GM foods are “unnatural.” According to this
myth, members of the public are concerned about GMOs because they think that genetic modification is ‘unnatural’. They do not realise that
humans, through breeding, have already been manipulating the genetic makeup of crops and farm animals for 10 000 years. GMOs were
frequently characterised as ‘unnatural’ by focus group participants. They expressed their feelings that directly modifying the genome was
qualitatively different from any previously used technique. A common viewpoint was that only existing organisms had been crossed, while
creating novel life-forms should not have existed. Thus, genetic engineering techniques were described as ‘pushing Nature beyond its limits.’
This was related to the idea that scientists didn’t understand the full extent of their work, and couldn’t anticipate the long-term consequences of
their actions on ecosystems, human health, and economy. This is false as GM foods have been shown to contribute to the demand of food in the
world.

When looking at the uses of GM crops, there needs to be an understanding of how GMO feed the world. At present, there are several
GM crops used as food sources. As of now, there are no GM animals approved for use as food, but a GM salmon has been proposed for FDA
approval. In several cases, the product is directly consumed as food, but most of the time the crops that have been genetically modified are sold as
commodities, further processed into food ingredients. The world's population is predicted to double over the next 40 years, 95% of individuals
being born in developing countries. It is estimated that to meet these increased demands, food production must increase by at least 40% while
facing the decreasing fertile lands and water resources. One of the benefits of GM plant technologies are the number of different approaches that
are being developed to combat these problems of feeding the world.

Conclusively, there has been many controversial topics on whether GM foods are safe to consume or a health risk. While GM crops
creates a new approach to growing food and will help later in the future in feeding the world, there should still be consideration on the
disadvantages of GMO regarding health and environment.
Sources:

http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/17/scientists-say-gmo-foods-are-safe-public-skepticism-remains/

https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/truth-about-gmos#1

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/gmos-good-or-bad#section3

https://www.healthline.com/health/gmos-pros-and-cons

https://healthresearchfunding.org/pros-cons-genetically-modified-foods/

Nih.gov:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083956/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3639326/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280366/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952409/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3615871/
 Explanation Rubric
Total Score __________​/50

Traits Advanced Proficient Partially Proficient Unsatisfactory

Claim:​ A ● The claim accurately and correctly addresses the ● The claim clearly and correctly ● The claim correctly ● The claim
statement that question we’re investigating. addresses the question we’re addresses the doesn’t
answers the investigating. question we’re answer the
question asked ● It’s phrased in a way that forecasts parts of the investigating, but is investigated
or the problem evidence and the reader knows what the question ● It’s phrased so that the reader unclear or vague. question or is
given. is. knows what the question is. incorrect.
● The reader cannot
infer what the
question being
answered is.

Evidence: ● The relevant qualitative and/or quantitative data ● Most of the relevant qualitative ● Most of the ● Some
Scientific data (evidence) is given and interpreted. and/or quantitative data is included qualitative and/or qualitative
that supports and partially interpreted. quantitative data is and/or
the claim. The ● The evidence clearly supports the claim. included but quantitative
data needs to ● There is an attempt to show how interpreted data is
be appropriate the evidence supports the claim. incorrectly or is not included but it
and sufficient relevant. isn’t
to support the interpreted.
claim. ● You need to show
how your data ● The evidence
supports the claim. does not
support the
claim.

Justification: ● Science knowledge is accurate and supports the ● Science knowledge is accurate and ● Science knowledge ● Science
Connecting the claim using scientific principles established in supports the claim using scientific is accurate, but key knowledge is
evidence to the class. principles established in class. ideas are missing. not accurate.
claim using
science ● You explain ​how​ the reasons and evidence support ● You attempt to show ​how​ the ● You do not show ● Your science
knowledge. and strengthen the claim. reasons and evidence supports the how reasons and knowledge
claim. evidence supports needs to
● Does not contain extra ideas that are incorrect. the claim. support the
● Does not contain extra ideas that claim.
are incorrect or distract from the ● Contains extra
main idea. ideas that may be
incorrect or distract
from the main idea.

Word Choice ● The relevant science vocabulary terms are ● Most​ relevant science vocabulary ● Some​ relevant ● Inaccurate use
included. terms are included. science vocabulary or no use of
terms are included. content
● Terms are used accurately and purposefully to ● Terms are used accurately to enrich vocabulary.
enrich the piece. the piece. ● Terms may not be
used accurately or
appropriately to
enrich the piece.
Craft/ ● Claim is stated first. ● Claim is stated first. ● Claim is stated first. ● Claim is not
stated first.
Organization ● You have a strong connection between your ● There is some connection between ● You need The order
evidence and science knowledge. evidence and science knowledge. connections doesn’t make
between evidence sense.
● It’s easy to understand your ideas the way you put ● Some ideas are easy to understand and science
them together. the way you put them together. knowledge. ● It is hard to
see how the
● A strong concluding sentence reiterates the ● A concluding sentence sums up ● Sequencing shows pieces fit
support for your claim or highlights its your ideas. some logic but is together as a
significance. inconsistent.
● Few grammar mistakes that do not whole.
● Few or no grammar mistakes that do not distract distract from the meaning most of ● Few grammar or
● Concluding
from the meaning. the time. punctuation sentence is not
mistakes that present.
distract from the
meaning. ● Many
grammar or
punctuation
mistakes that
distract from
the meaning.

Voice (7th ● No personal pronouns are used. ● Personal pronouns are rarely used. ● Personal pronouns ● Personal
Grade) (1-2) are used sometimes. pronouns are
● You used a formal tone, but varied it appropriately (3-5) used
to engage the reader. consistently.