Genetically modified foods (GMO's) are an increasingly common topic of debate. Most people don't even really know what they are, so obviously they don't know about the benefits or repercussions of using GMO's. This topic has always interested me, as over eighty percent of the foods we eat have GMO's in them, yet so few people know anything about them. GMO's are plants that have been genetically engineered to have certain characteristics by taking the genes from one organism and inserting it into another. For example, if scientists wanted to make tomatoes that were more resistant to heat and didn't need as much water, they would take genes from a cactus and insert them into the potato. Many people who don't know much about them oppose them simply due to the thought that since they aren't natural they're dangerous. These people with little knowledge on the topic make up for a large number of the people who oppose GMO's. Another reason for me picking this topic is that I think everyone should research them for themselves, because chances are they're being affected by it without even knowing. It's a topic that affects everyone because of how prevalent GMO's are. I've done a few projects over the past couple years on the topic of GMO's and the pros and cons of them. 

The author of the first source Kristian Toft, a professor with a PhD from Aalborg University in Denmark, claims that using GMO's to help combat starvation in third world countries is one of the best, if not the only option, we have available. He goes on to talk about how since we have the technology and it's proven to be more resistant and grow faster than natural crops, it's only right that we use it to help people in need (Toft). For example, many crops are not able to grow in arid climates in places like Africa, with the use of genetic modification these same crops would be able to be grown there. The article is somewhat biased as he claims that not utilizing GMO's to save lives is unjust. The article is still reliable and can be used because it is a factual article, Toft compiled data from numerous reliable sources to prove his argument.

The second article written by Antonio Regalado, a writer for several reliable science based journals, answers the question that many who oppose GMO's have, are they dangerous? Regalado claims they aren't, as the technology used in GMO's actually make them safer than natural crops. GMO's can be made resistant to destructive insects, eliminating the use of pesticides (Regalado). Pesticides can spread to other plants or water sources and kill organisms. GMO's can be infused with natural, safe to consume, bacteria that repel insects. It is similar to the same kind of bacteria that's in yogurt. The point of the article is to reassure people that GMO's are in fact safe, often safer than their natural counterparts. The article is not biased as it is purely factual. The author works at MIT, which is a well renowned institution, and writes articles that are published in reliable journals.

The third and final article, written by Zoe Robaey who has a PhD from the Center of Ethics and Technology at Delft University in the Netherlands, discusses the potential consequences of using GMO's. The main claim is that it could result in a monopoly, and the world would be dependent on a single company for food. The author believes that the company could become much too powerful, as everyone in the world needs food to survive (Robaey). As a result, Robaey tries to get the point across that there will need to be regulations on GMO's, and that it could turn into problem with morals and whether or not we could trust a company having complete control over something as important as food. This article shows a little bias, as the author doesn't want GMO's to be the only source of food for us. As a result the article mainly consists of the negative aspects of GMO's. Certain aspects of the article are theoretical but could very well happen, the author did it to make readers aware of what could happen if GMO's aren't regulated, further proving their point.

The question of whether or not GMO's are a safe alternative to natural crops is highly debatable. All of the sources agree that GMO's could help end world hunger, and also that they could potentially be dangerous. The third article brings up the point of morals, and having to trust a company with something as important as food. The question that can't really be answered is whether or not the GMO's are worth the risk. The second article proves that GMO's are often safer than natural crops. The first article claims that GMO's can end world hunger. Overall, I think GMO's should be utilized more but I think they need to be under strict regulations to insure safety.

