H4

text type: newspaper article

Assignments

Outline the benefits of genetic engineering as presented by the author and the UK’s plans to differ from EU regulations.

20%

Analyse the means and strategies the author employs to convince the readers that it is time to overcome the fears of genetic engineering in our food and to adjust regulations.

40%

Having discussed the article in your science club at school, you criticise it for being too one-sided and decide to write a letter to the editor. Refer to the depicted advantages of G.M. food as a starting point and elaborate on possible downsides of green biotechnologies and legitimate worries in society.

Write the letter to the editor including your background knowledge.

40%

“We Must Overcome the Fear of Genetic Engineering in Our Food”

by Camilla Cavendish

I recently had my Covid jab at London’s Science Museum, a wonderfully apposite location. Rolling down

my sleeve afterwards, I enjoyed a celebratory brunch in a café whose offerings were proudly marked

“GM-free”. This gave me pause. Having queued up to have a genetically engineered vaccine stuck in my

arm, I was being encouraged to spurn genetically engineered food on my plate. Did that, l wondered,

make sense?

The BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrate just how fast our ability to sequence and interrogate

the genome is transforming medicine. New gene-editing techniques could also transform farming, and

play a vital role in combating climate change, but they are still widely shunned as creating

“Frankenfoods”.

ln February, the Co-op supermarket reaffirmed its ban on genetically engineered ingredients from its

product range, in response to concerns that the UK government wants to make gene editing easier

post-Brexit. Under EU law, no commercialised genetically modified or gene-edited crop can be planted

without a lengthy risk assessment and member state approval. Loosening such restrictions could usher

in techniques to combat disease and grow crops with higher yields to feed the world.

The Cavendish banana, my namesake, offers a useful illustration. [...] [It] dominates world production

but is now on the verge of being wiped out by a new strain of Panama disease, a fungus which has

already killed off the only other banana which looked and tasted like the Cavendish, the Gros Michel. In

some countries where farmers rely on these crops to earn a living, the situation is desperate: Colombia

declared a national state of emergency in August 2019, when Panama disease was discovered on its

banana farms.

With pesticides unable to combat the fungus, it seems that the only way to save the

Cavendish banana is to alter its genome. [...]

[A]lmost nothing we eat is truly “natural”: every crop and animal we consume derives from centuries of

breeding. We routinely assume that “natural” is better than “unnatural” when it comes to food. But it is

more complex than that. Potatoes and some other vegetables contain toxins which could be deadly if we

didn't tackle them by breeding them out or avoiding mouldy bits. Organic crops are grown using

pesticides including copper sulphate, which is toxic even though it is naturally occurring.

Genetic modification certainly feels scary – because it involves inserting extra DNA, even if that’s only

one additional gene to the plant’s own tens of thousands. Gene-editing, by contrast, precisely targets

specific genes to fast-track changes that would take years using selective breeding.

For the EU to have treated both methods with equal stringency, as it has done since 2018, seems unfair.

Ministers seem minded to make it easier to conduct field trials and get commercial approval for

gene-edited plants and animals, which would bring England more into line with the US, and an

announcement is expected soon. But should they go even further?

With climate change the next big threat, the huge carbon footprint of farming must be addressed.

Genetic engineering offers the possibility of ending dependence on fertilisers which use fossil fuels, and

of making crops more resilient. It will allow us to engineer rice to produce less methane and ultimately

grow meat in the laboratory, which would drastically reduce the number of intensively farmed animals.

To transform agriculture and reduce its impact, we need both techniques. For genetic modification can

still do things which gene editing can’t. [...] “Golden Rice” is a GM crop with added genes for the

chemical beta-carotene, in an attempt to make it provide more vitamin A. Although Vitamin A deficiency

causes blindness in many parts of south-east Asia, many countries in the region remain reluctant to

adopt something which seems so outlandish.

Regulation is vital, for there are many legitimate worries. Can local wild plants or crops become

cross-contaminated? Could insects be affected? What is safe? GM technology is still overshadowed by

the attempts in the 1990s of some American companies to create monopolies, binding poor farmers

permanently to their seeds.

But regulation must be intelligent. The Royal Society has urged the UK government to regulate all new

plant and animal varieties according to the safety and characteristics of the new products created, not

by what technique is used to make the change.

This seems sensible. ln the 1990s, I supported environmentalists who opposed GM. Today, the scientists

I speak to seem to inhabit a different world to the days of “atomic gardening”, when zealots irradiated

plants to induce mutations, and there were fears about “killer tomatoes” crossed with fish. Explaining

the real trade-offs to the public will be a big job. But personally, I would rather eat a slightly altered

version of the Cavendish banana than never eat one again.

Camilla Cavendish, “We Must Overcome the Fear of Genetic Engineering in Our Food”, in: Financial Times, 18 June 2021; 794 words

Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!

monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?

Note:
Our solutions are listed in bullet points. In the examination, full marks can only be achieved by writing a continuous text. It must be noted that our conclusions contain only some of the possible aspects. Students can also find a different approach to argumentation.

The author, Camilla Cavendish, presents in her article "We Must Overcome the Fear of Genetic Engineering in Our Food" (2021) published in the Financial Times several benefits of genetic engineering in food in her article, while also discussing the UK's plans to diverge from EU regulations on this matter.

Introduction

revolutionize farming practices, leading to increased crop yields, disease resistance, and climate change mitigation $\rightarrow$ potential to address global food security challenges
example of the Cavendish banana, which is threatened by Panama disease
genetic modification is proposed as a solution to save this important crop, emphasizing the practicality and necessity of genetic engineering in agriculture
article distinguishes between genetic modification and gene editing, highlighting the precision and speed of the latter in making targeted genetic changes compared to traditional selective breeding
potential solution to reduce the carbon footprint of agriculture by ending the dependence on fossil fuel-based fertilizers and making crops more resilient to climate change
furthermore reducing the need for intensive animal farming and its environmental impact

Main Body
Benefits of Genetic Engineering in Food

Co-op supermarket has banned genetically engineered ingredients from its product range, partly in response to concerns that the UK government intends to make gene editing easier post-Brexit
under EU regulations, genetically modified or gene-edited crops require a lengthy risk assessment and member state approval
the UK government is considering loosening these restrictions, aligning itself more closely with the U.S. approach
with climate change becoming a significant threat, the UK government is inclined to facilitate field trials and commercial approval for gene-edited plants and animals, acknowledging the potential of genetic engineering to address climate-related challenges
author and the Royal Society argue for intelligent regulation in the UK, where the safety and characteristics of new genetically engineered products should be the primary focus, rather than the specific techniques used

UK's Plans to Differ from EU Regulations

In summary, the author emphasizes the potential benefits of genetic engineering in food, including its role in addressing agricultural challenges, climate change, and food security. Simultaneously, she discusses the UK's divergence from EU regulations in order to promote innovation in genetic engineering while ensuring intelligent and safety-focused oversight.

Conclusion

The author, Camilla Cavendish, employs several means and persuasive strategies to convince readers that it is time to overcome fears of genetic engineering in our food and to adjust regulations in her article.

Introduction

Cavendish creates an immediate connection with readers by beginning with a personal anecdote
relatable experience (receiving Covid-19 vaccination) helps readers empathize with her perspective and sets the stage for her argument
throughout the article, the author employs logical reasoning to support her claims $\rightarrow$ draws parallels between accepting genetically engineered vaccines and consuming genetically engineered food, emphasizing the inconsistency in public perception
this logical argument prompts readers to reevaluate their attitudes toward genetic engineering in food
Cavendish highlights the rapid advancements in genetic engineering and genome sequencing, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 vaccines
by showcasing the positive outcomes of genetic engineering in medicine, she encourages readers to consider its potential benefits in agriculture
use of real-world examples, such as the threat to the Cavendish banana from Panama disease, to illustrate the practical necessity of genetic engineering in addressing agricultural challenges.
concrete examples make the argument more tangible and persuasive
by pointing out that many of the foods we consume have been altered through centuries of breeding, she encourages readers to rethink their preconceived notions about food and genetics
article makes a clear distinction between genetic modification and gene editing, emphasizing the precision and benefits of the latter
this differentiation helps readers understand that genetic engineering is not a monolithic concept and that some methods are more precise and beneficial than others
the author brings in the pressing issue of climate change and the role genetic engineering can play in mitigating its effects
this appeal to environmental consciousness resonates with readers who are concerned about the planet's future

while the article is primarily based on logic and facts, it also appeals to readers' emotions
The mention of potential benefits like ending reliance on fossil fuels and reducing the number of intensively farmed animals taps into readers' concerns for the environment and animal welfare
credibility to her arguments by refering to organizations like the Royal Society as well as citing authoritative sources strengthens her case and builds trust with the audience
rather than advocating for a complete lack of regulation, Cavendish suggests a balanced approach to regulation that focuses on the safety and characteristics of genetically engineered products

Main Body
Persuasive strategies used

In conclusion, Camilla Cavendish uses a combination of personal anecdotes, logical reasoning, real-world examples, appeals to emotion, and references to credible sources to persuade readers to reconsider their fears of genetic engineering in food and to support adjusted regulations that take into account the potential benefits of this technology.

Conclusion

Dear Editor,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing in response to the recent article discussing the advantages of genetically modified (GM) foods, which was a topic of conversation at my school's science club
While the article highlighted several potential benefits of green biotechnologies, it is essential to recognize that this topic is far from one-sided, and there are legitimate concerns in society regarding the widespread adoption of GM crops.

Greeting and Opening

I acknowledge the depicted advantages of GM foods, such as increased crop yield, enhanced nutritional content, and resistance to pests and diseases
these benefits, undoubtedly, have the potential to address some of the world's most pressing agricultural challenges, including food security and malnutrition

Main Body
Advantages of GM foods

however, it is crucial to view these advantages through a critical lens and consider the possible downsides of green biotechnologies
legitimate societal concerns include the environmental impacts of genetically modified plants.
while the need for chemical pesticides can be reduced, there can also be unintended consequences, such as the development of pesticide-resistant pests and the decline of non-target species.
long-term effects of genetically modified plants on soil health and biodiversity are still uncertain and need to be examined.
another important issue is the potential monopolization of the seed industry by a few large biotech corporations
this restricts farmers' choices and creates a dependency on specific GM seeds.
furthermore, there are ethical and social concerns regarding the control and ownership of genetic information
patenting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can limit access to essential genetic resources and raise questions about who benefits from these innovations
safety of genetically modified foods for human consumption is still the subject of ongoing research and discussions
Regulatory authorities have classified many genetically modified crops as safe, but continuous monitoring and research are needed to investigate potential long-term health risks and allergies associated with genetically modified foods

Downsides of GM foods

Ultimately, it is vital to strike a balance in our discussion of green biotechnologies and GM foods.
while they offer promising solutions to some of our agricultural challenges, we must not overlook the legitimate worries in society, including environmental impact, monopolization, ethical concerns, and safety issues.
A more comprehensive dialogue that takes into account these complexities will enable us to make informed decisions about the future of agriculture.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and I hope to see a more balanced and inclusive discourse on this topic in your future publications.

Conclusion and Closing

Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!

monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?