Analyzing texts essay. Analysis of the informational texts “ genetically modified salmon, can feed the world” burnt Yonathan Zohar and “ say no to genetically engineered salmon” by Rick Moonen
In the modern world, the debate surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has become increasingly pertinent, especially when it comes to genetically modified salmon. Two articles, "Genetically Modified Salmon, Can Feed the World" by Yonathan Zohar and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" by Rick Moonen, approach this topic from different perspectives. By analyzing these texts, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the arguments made in favor of and against genetically modified salmon.
Zohar begins his article by discussing the global problem of food scarcity and the increasing demand for protein-rich food sources. He argues that genetically modified salmon, which grow twice as fast as conventional salmon, could potentially help address this issue. He emphasizes the genetic modification techniques used to enhance the salmon's growth rate and mentions that they are safe for human consumption. Zohar also highlights the potential economic benefits of genetically modified salmon, such as job creation and increased revenue for fishing communities.
On the other hand, Moonen's article presents a contrasting perspective. He starts by expressing concerns about the environmental and health risks associated with genetically modified salmon. Moonen argues that the rapid growth of genetically modified salmon may have negative environmental impacts, as they could outcompete wild salmon and disrupt aquatic ecosystems. He also questions the safety of consuming genetically modified salmon, expressing reservations about the long-term health consequences. Moonen advocates for sustainable fishing practices and the preservation of wild salmon populations.
Both articles highlight the potential benefits and risks of genetically modified salmon, but differ in their conclusions. Zohar argues that genetically modified salmon could help alleviate global hunger and create economic opportunities. He sees this technology as a solution to the world's growing food demand. On the other hand, Moonen fears the potential environmental and health consequences associated with genetically modified salmon. He believes that sustainable fishing practices and the protection of natural ecosystems are more important than creating genetically modified organisms.
In terms of persuasive techniques, Zohar employs a scientific, evidence-based approach. He cites research studies and scientific evidence to support his claims about the safety and benefits of genetically modified salmon. This lends credibility to his argument and appeals to readers' logic and reason. Conversely, Moonen relies more on emotional appeals, painting a vivid picture of the potential environmental harm and health risks associated with genetically modified salmon. He appeals to readers' fears and concerns, aiming to make them empathize with the potential negative consequences.
Overall, both articles provide valuable insights into the debate surrounding genetically modified salmon. Zohar's article advocates for viewing this technology as a solution to global hunger and highlights its potential economic benefits. Moonen's article, on the other hand, raises valid concerns about the environmental impact and health risks of genetically modified salmon. By analyzing these differing viewpoints, readers can make well-informed decisions about their stance on genetically modified organisms, particularly genetically modified salmon.