make this sound more like a girl who doesn't want to show to much work but wants a good grade, aslo the girl has very high anxiety and dyslexia
After reading both articles about genetically modified salmon, I have come to realize that there are different viewpoints on this issue. At first, I didn't really have a strong opinion either way, but after analyzing the arguments presented, I find myself leaning towards the perspective presented in the first article by Yonathan Zohar.
In Zohar's article, he explains that genetic engineering is not as scary as it sounds and that it involves making minor and targeted modifications to the animal genome. He compares it to selective breeding, which has been done for years without us questioning its safety. Zohar also emphasizes that the genetically modified salmon, known as AquAdvantage, only has one extra fish gene inserted into its genome, and this gene does not have any effect on the human consumer. He points out that the composition and health benefits of AquAdvantage salmon are no different from conventional farmed salmon. Additionally, Zohar mentions that the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that it is safe for people to eat.
On the other hand, Rick Moonen's article takes a strong stance against genetically engineered salmon. He expresses his concern about the fish being a creation of big industry solely aimed at making bigger profits, with little regard for the potential impact on our health and the environment. Moonen highlights that this genetically modified salmon contains growth hormone from a different species, which causes it to grow at twice the normal speed. He refers to the fish as a "Frankenfish" and raises doubts about its safety.
Although Moonen's argument raises important questions about the motives behind genetically modified salmon and their potential consequences, I find Zohar's perspective more compelling. Zohar's article provides reassurances about the safety and benefits of genetically modified salmon, emphasizing that the modifications are within the fish's physiological range and have no impact on human consumers. The fact that the Food and Drug Administration has deemed the AquAdvantage salmon safe further reinforces this perspective.
Through this analysis, my view on genetically modified salmon has changed. I initially had reservations about it, but after considering the arguments and evidence presented, I am now more open to the idea. I understand that genetic engineering can be a powerful tool for improving food production and addressing global challenges like feeding the world's growing population. However, I still believe it is crucial for thorough and independent research to be conducted to ensure the long-term safety and environmental sustainability of genetically modified organisms.
After reading both articles about genetically modified salmon, I have to admit that there are different opinions on this issue. At first, I didn't really have a strong opinion either way, but after looking at the arguments presented, I find myself leaning towards the perspective in the first article by Yonathan Zohar.
In Zohar's article, he explains that genetic engineering isn't actually as scary as it sounds and it involves making small and specific changes to the fish's genes. He compares it to selective breeding, which has been done for years without any safety concerns. Zohar also emphasizes that the genetically modified salmon, called AquAdvantage, only has one extra fish gene added, and this gene doesn't affect humans at all. He points out that the composition and health benefits of AquAdvantage salmon are the same as conventional farmed salmon. Zohar also mentions that the Food and Drug Administration has said it's safe to eat.
On the other hand, Rick Moonen's article strongly opposes genetically modified salmon. He worries that these fish are just a way for big industry to make more money, without caring about the possible effects on our health and the environment. Moonen highlights that this genetically modified salmon has a growth hormone from another species, which makes it grow twice as fast. He calls the fish a "Frankenfish" and raises concerns about its safety.
While Moonen's argument brings up important questions about the motives behind genetically modified salmon and their potential consequences, I find Zohar's perspective more convincing. Zohar's article provides assurances about the safety and benefits of genetically modified salmon, emphasizing that the changes made are within the fish's normal range and don't affect humans. The fact that the Food and Drug Administration has declared AquAdvantage salmon safe further supports this perspective.
Through this analysis, my view on genetically modified salmon has changed. I originally had concerns about it, but after considering the arguments and evidence presented, I'm now more open to the idea. I understand that genetic engineering can be a powerful tool for improving food production and addressing global challenges like feeding the world's growing population. However, I still believe it's important for thorough and independent research to be done to ensure the long-term safety and environmental sustainability of genetically modified organisms.