this is all you have to do read the articles and write
Artical one: from “Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World” by Yonathan Zohar
The public should not be scared by the term “genetic engineering.” This powerful platform requires making only relatively minor and very targeted modifications to the animal genome, compared, for example, with selective breeding and domestication, where we manipulate many genes over generations without knowing exactly what is altered. We have all been eating selectively bred fish, chicken, beef and other animals for many years without thinking twice about it. The AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon has only one extra copy of a fish gene inserted into its genome. This one addition, while enhancing the hormones of the growth axis in fish, operates within the fish's physiological range. And these are fish hormones that have no effect on the human consumer. The AquAdvantage salmon is no different from conventional farmed salmon in its composition and health benefits, and the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that it is safe for people to eat."
Article two: from “Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon” by Rick Moonen
Question; I am and always will be completely against any food that has been altered genetically for human consumption. And never, in the 30-plus years I have been a restaurant chef, has one customer requested a genetically modified organism for dinner. This is why I was alarmed to learn early this month that the Food and Drug Administration announced with "reasonable certainty" that a new genetically modified Atlantic salmon awaiting approval posed “no harm” to humans who might soon have the opportunity to buy it and eat it as though it were a fish from nature. The announcement brings this “Frankenfish” one step closer to your table. But make no mistake. The creation of this fish is just another tactic for big industry to make bigger, faster profits with no consideration for the impact it will have on our personal health and the health of our environment and ecosystem. The fish, an Atlantic salmon, contains growth hormone from a Pacific species, the Chinook salmon, as well as genetic material from another species, the ocean pout, that causes the “transgenic” salmon to grow at twice the normal speed."
analyzed both articles about genetically modified salmon. Your study has included identifying and analyzing both apparently conflicting facts and conflicting points of view. Reflect on your own response to the issue now. Which argument did you find more compelling? Why? Did your view change over the course of your analysis?
(make it sound like an eight-grade girl who is a tomboy and doesn't use 'like' after every sentence, also make it less than 10000 words)
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.