Blog Post 4

            I found writing the Argumentative Research Essay to be challenging and engaging at the same time. At the conference, it was surprising for me to find out how different our approaches to composing our papers were. Writing the second draft of A.R.E. was difficult because I had to follow all the instructions for the assignment and organize the final shape of my paper. However, it was relatively easy to write everything down once I had my outline done. I still need to revise the essay a little bit, I have to extend the conclusion and mention a source in the beginning of a long paragraph. Also, I will do more editing once I finish revising it.

               I appeal to ethos in my essay by identifying the issue of labeling GMOs in the United States, which is a concern of the present. I demonstrate that I am knowledgeable of the issue by offering a lot of content on GMOs and Proposition 37 in California in my introduction. I write about what GMOs represent, how they are produced, what are the GM products available on the market and some of their side effects. I also show that I understand the complexity of the issue by mentioning counterarguments. 

              I appeal to pathos by stating that not knowing what is in our food is not fair to us and that we have the right to know what we feed our families. Being concerned with what I eat is a common ground between me and my audience. I do not use sarcasm throughout my essay, nor irony.

           I appeal to logos by offering support for my claims backed up by serious research. I undermine all the counterarguments by explaining why they are not true. For example, the argument that grocery store products` prices will go up if labeling of GMOs will be required is not true because there is no evidence for that, changing what a label says can`t raise the price of the product and in Europe there were no such increases after mandatory labeling of GMOs was introduced.

          For revising, I would emphasize more on pathos by giving more illustrations of the issue I`m talking about. I would focus more on the uncertainty of the effects of GM foods on our health.

          I now understand more about critical thinking because I came to question the information I was reading about while I was doing research for my topic, which led me to the main inquiry question. I believe critical thinking is linked to independent inquiry because it involves the process of deciding if a claim is true, not completely true or false, thus it makes me question facts or arguments. I also realized that the writing process is a long one, which involves multiple steps and that I can improve my writing on any occasion I am willing to spend time on it. Also, providing and receiving feedback has to be a part of the writing process because it helps us make sure we are on the right track.

Blog Post 3

I feel like I have done a good job researching my topic, but I will need some feedback as I develop writing my argument. My classmates are very helpful in letting me know if I have made my point across. I am still confused about what it means to establish a personal investment in the issue when writing the research essay.

My “working thesis” is built around proving that biotech companies` arguments opposing labeling of GM products are misleading. In other words, the real reason biotech companies are against labeling GM products is that they are afraid to loose profits, although their employees state it is because there is no need to specify how products were created since they are almost equal to natural foods. They make other claims as well, such as the prices of such products would go up if labeling becomes mandatory. I will demonstrate that their ideas are not aligned with reality. This working thesis is created according to the misinterpretations model because I will provide a new insight into the arguments of biotech companies.

My main claim is a claim of policy because I try to convince my audience to support Prop 37 in California so that a law requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs will be passed. My audience is companies within US which have funds to support Prop 37 campaign so that it wins against Monsanto, Coca Cola and Nestle, which invested much more money in the campaign criticizing Prop 37.

I will make some concessions in my argument because I have to acknowledge that there are other ways of seeing things. 

Blog Post 2

My topic is genetically modified organisms/foods and after I did some research on the subject I came up with many inquiry questions. The main one would be: why are the bio tech companies/corporations so against the labeling of products which had been genetically modified?

Firstly, there are the scientists who work for bio tech corporations. They support the idea of genetically modified foods by claiming that those are equal to their natural counterparts. Also, these scientists state that genetically modified products will put an end to the famine in this world, especially in the developing countries, because the crops that had been genetically modified give off an increased yield of produce. GMOs, they say, are created to be more resistant to drought, cold weather and other extreme climatic conditions. There is no health risk associated with GMOs and they see no reason in labeling GM foods. These scientists defend the business of GMOs and are scared that if a law of labeling such product should be passed, their profits would go down.

Secondly, there are the independent scientists. They review the techniques of genetic engineering and its effects on public health and environment. These people are objective and are concerned about decreased bio diversity as a consequence of the increase in number of GM crops. They talk about “super weeds” that are created by the presence of GMOs. They are worried about allergenicity, a possible effect of ingesting GM foods, viral infections, if the virus utilized for the transfer of genes is reactivates, increased antibiotic resistance of bacteria. The independent scientists recommend labeling GM foods because knowing what foods make you prone to allergies is important for public health.

Thirdly, the last people involved in conversations about the importance of labeling GM foods, are the consumers or individuals who advocate for them. They argue that it is their right to make an informed decision when buying a food product. This is the area where I found the most interesting articles on the topic. For example, Monsanto, the biotechnology corporation threatens to sue any state that would pursue passing the law which requires labeling of GM products.

Thompson, Janice, and Melinda Manore. “Genetically Modified Organisms: A Blessing or a Curse”? Nutrition For Life, Second Edition. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2010. Print

This source comes from independent scientists and tries to look at positive and negative impacts of GMOs. It describes what the pro GMOs claim and what the ones who are against think about it.

“Our Right to Know”. Mother Earth News. 00271535, Jun/July 2012, Issue 252. Environment Complete. Web. 20 Sep 2012

This article explains the consumer`s concerns about GMOs and talks about the importance of a law that requires labeling GM products.

A dialogue between the authors of these articles could sound like this:

Consumer: What is genetically modified organism and how it is obtained?

Thompson: I`ll give you an example. You want to make a tomato resist cold temperatures, so you take a gene from a fish of the North Atlantic Ocean and you insert it in the tomato`s DNA.

Consumer: How do you know that would be safe for public health?

Thompson: We do not have information of the impact on public health yet because bio engineering of organisms started in 1994, thus it will take a couple generations for us to learn about the health risks associated with that.

Consumer: So, considering that there is not enough information on the impact GM products have on public health, I believe it is my right to know what I am buying and to avoid any additional health risks by finding on the label if the product was genetically modified.

Thompson: This is an existing issue in United States. The bio tech companies are not required to mention on the label if the product was GM. In most European countries, the industry of GMOs is highly regulated.

Consumer: I am sure that such companies, like Monsanto, are more concerned with profits than with public health safety. They worry that if labeling of such products will be required, their profits will decrease and they do not want that.

Thompson: Actually, they claim that if labeling laws are passed, the prices of such products will go up, which does not make sense in case the profits go down because that will be another reason for the consumer not to buy a higher priced product.

Consumer: They will raise the prices to make up for the profit loss, but in reality they are saying that they would have to make up for the loss cost.

Thompson: Whatever claims they might have, the labeling of GMOs remains an issue of great importance within the US. 

Blog no.1

I enjoyed learning about meditation practice and finding out that people have their own ways to relax their mind and soul. I have many topic ideas and it is really hard to narrow it down to just one of them. Here are a few: how is the lack of public transportation in the US affecting the physical and psychological health of the American people? Do religious people have a better quality of life than atheists? Taking vitamin supplements – is it really good for you? and Overdoing it – hygiene and immunizations in children.

I will consider “Do religious people have a better quality of life than atheists”? as my example for this blog. I chose this because I am curious to find out more about the long term positive effects of pertaining to a certain faith and what are the differences between people who practice a religious belief system versus people who do not believe in a Higher Force and think that they have to rely on themselves only to be successful and healthy. I am more concerned with psychological health in this topic, but also with physical, such as healing by prayer.

I think there is a lot of opposition to the statement that religious people have a better quality of life and that might be coming from groups who practice and value science but are skeptical of trying something they cannot find evidence for, like the existence of God for example. Other people might just not believe in anything because they are atheists, but are healthy and successful, thus they would suggest that there is no need for faith, since they have everything they need without the help of a Higher Being. There is strong evidence about the long term positive effects on health of practicing a religion, especially when we look at old people and we are able to take into consideration their whole life and how faith contributed to their wellness. In the past, a lot of doctors disagreed with the power of faith in healing a diseased, but I am hoping that as I will start doing my research I would find out that there is some openness regarding this issue. However, in most cases, doctors think that if they arrived to the conclusion that a certain pathology cannot be cured, faith would not stand a chance in over passing science. But, there are cases where faith did cure when there was no hope for the patient.

This issue might be related to the power of mind and to the presumption that if we learn how to control our mind, it will lead us to being in charge of our anatomy and physiology processes, which is very interesting. An example of having such power over the body is a person who can control her/his blood pressure by using their mind. However, I believe there is a huge difference between wishful thinking and actually acting on what we want to achieve and I want to explore that in my paper.