Hunger is a serious issue around the world and many have and still are trying to solve this crisis. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), in this case crops/food, are being genetically modified to be able to survive harsh environments and be able to yield a decent or larger amount of food for the people living in those areas. But, are GMOs actually doing what scientists say they are doing? Viewpoints of genetically modified crops/food are being discussed throughout the reading, giving negative opinions, positive opinions, why and why not GMOs should be used on crops for underdeveloping countries and places where crop yielding is very scarce.
Tone: The tone that these different experts used mostly were in ethos and credibility. Sympathizing with people in…show more content… All the information about GMO’s given are very good points and even if the reader wasn’t very into genetically modifying, would have a hard time to pick which side to choose.
Plot: There are also other point in this debate other than GMO’s, such as, U.S. corporations not joining a water frugal system because it is not very profitable. Though, modifying crops is the main point. Two debtors Collier and Shiva present opposing viewpoints. But, Collier seemed to be a bit more persuasive. Collier said, “genetically modified crops and food has been contaminated by political and aesthetic prejudices (pg 355).” this can be true since not everyone that is involved in agriculture, economy, and politics will agree that genetically modifying is the answer to ending world hunger. Also, Collier discusses that GMO’s can, because of the deteriorating climate in Africa, modifying the crops “can” accelerate the adaptation of the crops in the area. As well as help yield crops more quickly in order to keep up with the increase of population growth. Without the help of these modified crops the price of food could rise and/or spike, in which case the poor will suffer more than