Summary Of Mr Henry Miller And Gregory Conko

676 Words2 Pages

First, I would like to clarify my point of view on the statement made by Mr. Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, from “Scar Food,” policy Review (June/July 2006). The statement by Mr. Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko of the Hoover Institution argue that genetically modified (GM) crops are safer for the consumer and better for the environment than non- GM crops. And also they discusses about topics such as Americans take food safety very seriously, Do not trust Mother Nature and also about property damage and personal Injury from the naturally produced foods. In addition to this Mr. Henry & Mr. Gregory is trying to say that genetically produced food are much safer than naturally produced food. As I went through this article I understood that it is about the advantages of introducing genetically modified foods are safer to consume than naturally produced food. So this part of the argument can be considered as the opinion of a one side of a coin. …show more content…

Jeffrey M. Smith. The statement by Mr. Jeffrey states that, as the director of Institute for responsible Technology and the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, argues that GM foods are dangerous to health and should be removed from the market place. And furthermore he discusses topics such as Animals Reject GM; Concern about the safety of GM food was growing, cleaning up the food chain, the power of the markets and also about GM free zones. In addition to this Mr. Jeffrey summarizes that GM foods are not good for human health and also for animals. I also went through it to grasp my understanding and it is all about Mr. Jeffrey’s argument on that genetically modified food is not good for health. So as I discussed before this part of the argument is the opposite side of a

Open Document