The Psychology of Distrusting G.M.O.s

Article: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/the-psychology-of-distrusting-gmos.html

In this article, the author is concerned about people's feelings about foods that are considered unnatural, specifically genetically modified organisms (G.M.O.s). First, the author starts off with a hook that refers to the author Michael Pollan's negative attitude towards an article about the potential of genetically modified oranges. The author then goes more general by saying that there are many other people who feel the same way. She includes studies by psychologists and researchers about people's reactions to G.M.O.s and goes into depth about people's distrust of these foods. Then, the author gives a few reasons why G.M.O.s might gain more acceptance in the future: people may gradually become more familiar with G.M.O.s, and foods that are highly necessary may face shortages without genetically modified alternatives. The author concludes the article by referring back to the idea of genetically modified oranges.

The article's structure is pretty simple, and the author does a good job describing people's feelings about G.M.O.s. Her analysis progress really nicely. In addition, the studies that she includes in the article are very interesting and relevant to the topic. I also like the hook, which is effective, and how the author ties the beginning and the end of the article together by referring back to the hook in the last paragraph. The article itself is intriguing.

Especially by reading the last two paragraphs, it seems that the author believes that people's suspicion of G.M.O.s is illogical. However, I think people's views on these foods are valid and reasonable in some degree. While the author overlooks the disadvantages of G.M.O.'s, I am aware that it is possible that G.M.O.s pose some health risks. There are those who say that G.M.O.s are perfectly safe, but I doubt it because there is not enough evidence to support their claim.

Artificial Meat: Grow Your Own

Article: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/08/artificial-meat

In this article, the author talks about the development of artificial meat and the public's response to it. Mark Post, who grew the beef, did so by harvesting the stem cells of two live cows and then causing the cells to multiply. The tasters of the artificial meat described it as "not that juicy," but nevertheless Post believes that it is "a good start." The author then lists some advantages of artificial meat over natural meat.

The article is easy to comprehend, and its structure and organization are pretty simple. By reading the last paragraph, it is evident to the reader that the author is pleased with Post's innovation. I think the article would be better, though, if the author was a little more objective, but at the same time he did a good job supporting his view.

The article is very interesting. I have often found many scientific and technological innovations and discoveries very intriguing, and the development of artificial beef is no exception. I agree with the author that artificial beef would ultimately benefit the world. First of all, raising cattle requires a lot of land, so growing meat in factories or at home would free up tremendous space for the growing world population. Also, the growth of artificial meat would help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions contributed by raising livestock. In addition, I recently read a book that describes the extremely dangerous conditions that workers at slaughterhouses face. The development of artificial beef would certainly prevent a lot of pain and suffering by significantly reducing the number of cattle that need to be slaughtered for consumption to meet demands.