Genetically modified foods (GMOs) are an increasingly common topic of debate. Most people don't even know what they are, so obviously they don't know about the benefits or repercussions of using GMOs. This topic has always interested me, as over eighty percent of the foods we eat have GMOs in them, yet so few people know anything about them. GMOs 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 tomato. Many people who don't know much about GMOs oppose them simply due to the thought that since they aren't natural, they're dangerous. Based off my previous experiences and discussions with people, it seems like not enough people are informed on them. 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 GMOs are. I've done a few projects over the past couple years on the topic of GMOs 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 GMOs to help combat starvation in third world countries is one of the best, if not the only option, available. He goes on to talk about how since the technology is available, 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 survive in places with arid climates like Africa. This poses an obvious problem, as it limits which plants they could grow. With the use of genetic modification, crops that would normally die would be able to be grown there. Toft writes the article to try and convince people that GMOs are not bad. In fact, they're actually extremely useful if used correctly. He also wants to make people aware that millions of lives can be saved through the use of GMOs, and that supporting them is the right thing to do. The article is somewhat biased as he claims that not utilizing GMOs 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 GMOs have, "Are they dangerous?" Regalado claims they aren't, as the technology used in GMOs actually make them safer than natural crops. GMOs 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. GMOs 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 GMOs are in fact safe, often safer in the long run than their natural counterparts. Regalado supports GMOs, and he wants other people to know about some of the benefits, such as less pesticides which lead to a cleaner and safer environment. The article is not biased as it is purely factual. The author works at MIT, which is a renowned institution, and writes articles that are regularly 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 GMOs. The main claim is that it could result in an oligopoly, and the world would be dependent on a few companies for affordable food. The author believes that the corporations could become much too powerful, and would make GMOs the only practical food option (Robaey). As a result, Robaey tries to get the point across that there will need to be regulations on GMOs. He states that it could turn into problem with morals and whether or not a few companies dominating the food market can be trusted. This article shows a little bias, as the author doesn't want GMOs to be the only food source available to the world. As a result the article mainly consists of the negative aspects of GMOs. Certain aspects of the article are theoretical but could very well happen. The author is interested in making readers aware of what could happen if GMOs aren't regulated. He values being able to choose between GMOs and natural foods, and is worried that the world could lose this choice.

The question of whether or not GMOs are worth the risk is highly debatable. The sources agree that GMOs could help end world hunger, but also that they could potentially be dangerous. The third article brings up the point of morals and the possibility of having to trust a few dominant corporations with a huge share of the food market. Due to this the market could eventually become even more flooded with GMOs, and it would be more of a hassle to get organic foods. The second article proves that GMOs are often safer than natural crops. The first article claims that GMOs can end world hunger. However, the question that can't really be answered is whether or not the GMOs are worth the risk. In my opinion, I think GMOs should be utilized more, but they need to heed to strict regulations to ensure safety.

