Wordy Sentences
One of my biggest struggles in writing has always been crafting concise and impactful sentences. When I wrote the first draft of the final essay, I realized (as my classmates also pointed out) that my sentences would often tag several ideas together in a jumble of uneconomical wording. I tended to write my thoughts as they flowed in my brain, altering certain words or changing the order here and there. I might tie two different thoughts together with a conjunction such as "and" or "but," and the connections would make sense in my mind. It was a different story for my readers, however, who told me sometimes they had to read statements twice or more to understand the point and how I got there. This was not only due to trying to relate too many points to each other in one go, but also to the use of extra words or phrases that cluttered the meaning. Certain phrases like "but maybe" and "when it comes to etc." had a habit of creeping into my writing in that first draft. My attempt in revising was to eliminate most of these extras and strip wordy sentences down to the bare minimum before smoothing them out - mainly with the goal to increase clarity and flow. When writing is full of unnecessary words and too many trains of thought, the message ultimately becomes lost in the resulting confusion.
Beginning Phrases with "And" or "But"
During this English course, I realized just how much I tend to begin sentences with "and" or "but." This habit, of course, comes naturally when having a face to face conversation, so I did not know that it was a problem. However, while the strategy can be used in some writing to create a more engaging mood, I learned that in formal academic writing, starting sentences with these conjunctions is not acceptable. Even with this newly acquired knowledge, I often slipped back into the old habit as I typed out the first draft of my final essay. My classmates found most of these areas and reminded me once more to fix this tendency. It not only broke the rules of formal writing, but it also demonstrated a carelessness on my own part. As a writer, I realized that it was important for authors to build credibility with their readers. It was through the comments of my peers, however, that I began to understand the essential part attention to details plays in establishing this credibility. Being inattentive even in small particulars is a quick and easy path to losing respect, so it was important for me to go back and strike these unacceptable words. Negligence to begin my sentences correctly may not seem like a big deal, but it certainly can hold damaging consequences.
Watch Out for Typos
Typos: my old and ever-present enemy. While I think I can say that I have gotten better and quicker at finding them while I write, I certainly was not exempt from their presence in the first draft of my final essay. In revising for the final draft, I had to carefully read through each paragraph and make sure any small typos were fixed or safely out of the way. Adding an "s" on the end of a word here or forgetting a comma there, typos generally include the errors of misspelling or accidentally omitting words. It is true that these errors rarely make a large impact on the content of a paper, but it can be annoying or distracting when the reader bumps into one. Such an encounter makes it seem as if the writer spent only enough time on his piece for one draft and did not bother to see if his words turned out well or not. In other words, if I as an author am inattentive to missing words or inaccurate spelling, this attitude tells the reader that I did not care enough about him to proofread my writing – or that I was ignorant of my duty as the writer to keep my audience in mind. Either way, I lose his respect and the credibility that is so essential for a writer to truly succeed.
Clear Voices in the Conversation
Something I found difficult with the final essay was knowing how to balance my voice with all the voices of researchers I integrated in my writing. A classmate pointed out that there were several places where she was not sure where the information I shared was coming from. Did I come up with it myself? Was this what another researcher discovered, or was it actually just my analysis? It is bound to become confusing for an audience when they do not know who is speaking, who is agreeing, and who is disagreeing. It would be like listening to a conversation but not being able to see the people talking - or like reading a dialogue without any indicators of whether “John said” this or “Betty said” that. After further investigation, I found I had neglected to add parenthetical citations after certain references to another's research. Additionally, I had not done an adequate job of introducing my sources when I mentioned their thoughts or data in my paragraphs. These indicators are necessary for the reader to keep track of the flow of the main argument without getting lost in who agrees or disagrees. Clarifying whose voice is whose also builds standing with the audience as the writer demonstrates he has researched trustworthy sources and is giving credit where credit is due. Thus, another effort I put in editing the final draft was directed toward crafting clear and smooth indicators of who was speaking and how their thoughts related to my own argument.
Too Many Sources!
The instructions for this particular essay said that students were not allowed to use more sources than the number of pages they wrote - and the limit of page numbers was seven. When I turned in my first draft, I had six pages and nine outside sources. Here again, I not only neglected to obey the guidelines for the paper, but I also demonstrated a lack of attentiveness to the details I was supposed to know. While I do not see much wrong with using many sources in general, it is always important to know the requirements for one's project and follow them as closely as possible. In this case, my fault of not reading the instructions carefully led to the more obvious consequences of directly violating them. I am grateful that there was a first draft and that my peers reviewed my piece thoroughly. One of them noticed my overabundance of sources on the "works cited" page and kindly pointed out my error. Thus, in the revised and final edition of the essay, I worked to cut my source list down from nine to seven while typing another paragraph so that my pages numbered the same. I have certainly learned (and I hope for good) that it is of utmost importance to thoroughly read and understand the instructions - taking notes if I have to remember - in an attempt to respect my professors and peers and in turn gain their own respect.
Conclusion: Finish Strong
The concluding statement is one of the most significant sentences in the entire essay. I have heard it described as the bow that wraps up the final gift to the audience. As such, it is the writer's responsibility to craft the last line in such a way that leaves the reader both satisfied and thoughtfully pondering the conclusion's implications. However, in my first draft, that final sentence was the one that received the most comments - and consequently the most edits. While the direction it headed was good and the idea I installed in the statement promised a satisfying and thoughtful ending, the words I used did not contribute well to strengthen its impact. I slightly twisted the old phrase "better safe than sorry" in trying to make my point, yet it fell short of achieving that goal and appeared more as a failed attempt at being clever. To add to that, I inserted several "extra" words that were not necessary and cluttered the text so that it became hard to read smoothly. I even began the sentence with the word "but," one of the faults I spoke of above. This sentence was packed with meaning disguised by several little errors - it did not lead to a satisfactory end. In revising this concluding sentence, I tried to streamline it as much as possible by cutting out all unnecessary words. Then I took my classmate's advice and reworked my version of "better safe than sorry" into something more fitting with my text. I realized, ultimately, how important the last sentence of any piece is, to say the least. Craft it poorly and the rest of the argument is forgotten in confusion. Craft it powerfully and the reader walks away pondering the argument's implications.
Caution: Know What You Eat
When friends talk about unhealthy foods, “GMO” is usually not the term that pops up in the discussion. Maybe people should start to pay closer attention to these organisms which have infected the food system more than many realize. It might be a surprise to hear that several of the food products people eat every day, including cornstarch, canola oil, rice, and even certain fruits and vegetables, contain these GMOs (genetically modified organisms) – organisms with artificially engineered genes. Hot debate has arisen about whether or not GMOs are actually more detrimental than beneficial to those who consume them. Clash between the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and other scientists has forced the question of whether greater and nuanced crops are worth the price of good health, or if the risk is even worth paying attention to. While many consider agricultural GMOs as dependable and healthy sources for food, concerns over both their indirect and inherent negative effects on the human body, on top of the risky effects of widely embracing a largely mysterious realm of science, should cause people to think twice before implicitly trusting the reliability of all GMOs.
It is widely acknowledged that GMOs have substantially increased crop output for farmers, but evidence seems to indicate that the side-effects of altering these plants may actually harm consumers. A large target for the GMO process was to genetically engineer plants to withstand doses of pesticides and herbicides; this practice, however, has led farmers to douse them with even more toxic repellents (Hsiao). The destruction of crops by pests and weeds is devastating enough to warrant more levels of protection, but while plants may thrive, increased pesticide intake creates health issues for humans. Jennifer Hsiao, Ph.D. candidate in Harvard’s Biological and Biomedical Sciences Program, reveals that “preliminary evidence [shows] that chronic, low-dose exposure to pesticides increases the risk of cognitive impairments and diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s later in life” (Hsiao). The increased use in repellents, though it aims to get rid of all pests and weeds, leads to increased consumption of substances which are poisonous to humans. Beyond just affecting humans through Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases in later years, consumption of these toxins can also cause diabetes or infertility for women (Hsiao). While the effects may not show up early in life, the accumulation over a lifetime is enough to cause lasting damage. Utilizing GMOs in crops, though beneficial in many ways, may not be the wisest solution for farmers if they continue to add more repellants.
It is true that GMOs seem to be useful tools, and the goal of this paper is not to condemn all use of these organisms. Through boosting crop production, many believe that agricultural GMOs are a possible road to preventing world hunger and helping developing nations (Hsiao). Nevertheless, caution seems necessary as people interact with this new realm of science nearly every day. The stakes are high. Merely taking a look at the consequences of using GMOs to protect crops – not problems with the GMOs themselves – demonstrates the prudence of knowing what food a person regularly eats and carefully examining the ingredients of products from the store. Although the benefits of pesticides are real, so also is the threat of repellants poisoning food items (Hsiao). So, while this exploration of evidence does not attempt to call for a ban on all GMOs, it does aim to show the need for more attentive care when purchasing and consuming food. Of course, the use of pesticides and herbicides as a repercussion of a repellant-resistant harvest is not the only reason to be wary about GMOs.
Not only do farmers’ responses to these agricultural GMOs appear to harm consumers, but current scientific analysis also indicates that these organisms themselves may lead to serious health consequences. A recent study conducted by microbiologist Gilles-Eric Séralini discovered that, contrary to popular notion, consuming genetically modified maize can cause significant deficiencies and illnesses with several organs in the bodies of rats. Indeed, while some might find comparing rats to mankind deeply insulting, testing these specific rodents actually allows scientists to deduce potential outcomes for humans. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, rat genetics are ninety percent similar to human genetics, which has led to testing and consequent predictions for drugs, GMOs, and the like. They are considered in the scientific community sufficiently similar to humans that scientists very often extrapolate data and effects between them (“Scientists Compare Rat Genome with Human”). Séralini’s study shows that rats fed “lower levels of complete agricultural G herbicide formulations [maize], at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, can induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic, and kidney disturbances” (Séralini). In other words, Séralini points out that serious internal complaints resulted from the rats consuming the herbicide-resistant GMOs. In fact, a large conclusion from this same study was that the rats developed more cancerous tumors because of the genetically altered maize they were eating. GMOs, as follows from the study, beyond just affecting rats negatively have potential to harm humans. As the rats maintained physical injury, inferred from their GMO intake, it is not unlikely that this would be the case for humans as well.
However, it is important to note that many object to Séralini’s study, though other analysis seems to indicate that it is more trustworthy than realized. When the results of the test were first published, several prominent institutions outright rejected its conclusions. A main objection to the study was that the sample size was too small to accurately portray the truth. Critics also remarked on the lack of recorded data shared with the scientific community after the results were released. Moreover, it seemed the rats tested (Sprague-Dawley rats) were a kind that was already susceptible to tumors (Loening). However, there are significant responses to these claims that seem to justify the study’s accuracy in comparison to most other studies conducted. Dr. Ulrich Loening, a prestigious molecular biologist, defended Séralini’s study, arguing that it should be just as credible in the scientific community as most other well-accepted GMO tests, because almost all other studies used even smaller samples than Séralini. In addition, Séralini’s test was conducted over a longer time span – two years, as opposed to the three months usual testing which, according to the International Journal of Biological Sciences, are demonstrated as unfit for accurate assessment (de Vendômois et al). Dr. Loening reasons that “for humans, no one denies the need for long-term studies; the rat 90 day trial could be compared with a tobacco smoking trial in human teenagers which is stopped in their 20s, long before lung cancer becomes apparent.” Though the final concern of the SD (Sprague-Dawley) rats does pose an important point, this kind of rat is actually the common and standard species used in most scientific studies of GMOs and drugs (Loening). As European scientists Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck conclude, “[a] rejection of the validity of the Seralini study based on the choice of rats would therefore either be based on a lack of familiarity with the scientific field. Or these criteria would have to apply to all carcinogenicity [cancer] trials conducted to date with this rat strain and, thus, leave us with hardly any valid carcinogenicity study.” On the whole, Séralini’s study, though it may have had room for improvement, certainly seems a step above most other competing tests in its demonstration of the imminent danger of embracing all GMO products.
Though plenty of evidence seems to imply that GMOs can harm humans, merely recognizing the limited understanding scientists have of this newer realm of science should check how much trust people place in GMOs. The idea of genetically engineered organisms, whether in humans, animals, or food, is not an old one that is tested by time or numerous accurate experiments. While certain forms of GMOs have existed for some time, they were not widely or comprehensively examined by scientists until the last several decades; these organisms still constitute a relatively recent area of study that is full of implications scientists have yet to discover – benefits and harms (Jenkins 27-28). As noted before, not many experiments have been carried out that cover an extensive period of time – the average duration for testing is only ninety days, which does not allow for deeply studying universal effects (de Vendômois et al). In fact, according to an article published by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, the standard tests seem to be rather inaccurate. This is due not only to the brief testing periods and small samples, but also to the lack of well-conducted, rigorous studies that delve into all the consequences and their nuances (de Vendômois et al). Perhaps the studies that were thought to be shedding new light on GMOs in reality cannot produce trustworthy results or lead to true understanding.
Some would argue that even though not all scientific studies are the most accurate, GMOs are still safe because the majority of people have eaten them for years and not developed serious illnesses; this hasty observation, however, does not take all facts into account. It is true that most of the meals people eat contain GMOs in some shape or form (Jenkins 17). Without careful maneuvering on the part of a consumer, there is almost no way to avoid food products with GMO ingredients. Nevertheless, though it is not common to hear of someone growing sick because of his or her intake of GMOs, the absence of such knowledge does not prove that genetically altered organisms are harmless. McKay Jenkin’s book, Food Fight, which offers an unprejudiced exploration of both sides of the GMO debate from a scientific perspective, investigates this particular generalization. In Jenkin’s interview with Alfredo Huerta – a plant biologist at Miami University – Huerta argues that “[w]hen industries say that GMOs are safe because billions of people have eaten them and no one has dropped dead, they’re being anecdotal, not scientific” (27). He then goes on to ask: “How would we know if [human illnesses] are… caused by GMOs if we don’t know where these ingredients enter our diet, and if we don’t conduct proper human clinical trials?” (27). In other words, since there been no long-term studies of the effects of GMOs on human beings, it is erroneous to make judgements based on oversimplified observations. Scientists simply cannot know at this point in time if there are connections between agricultural GMOs in the food system and diseases in consumers. Arriving at hasty verdicts cannot verify that eating genetically engineered food is entirely safe. There seems to be no solid justification as of yet for considering all GMOs reliable. Ultimately, knowing how limited the understanding of GMOs is should inspire caution in both scientists and other people as new discoveries are made about the real nature and consequences of genetically engineered organisms.
The dangerous effects of GMOs on human health and wellbeing, coupled with the uncertain ground in exploring a relatively new area of science, provide good reason for people to be wary and carefully examine the products they consume daily. Not only do the agricultural GMOs appear to encourage farmers to use more toxic repellants on their crops, but also studies indicate that the GMOs themselves are detrimental to human health. And although a main study that supports this conclusion – Seralini’s study – has been rejected by many, it seems to have actually more credibility than the majority of GMO tests conducted in science. On top of all of this, the unknown nature of this realm of science should be another warning to take GMOs seriously and examine the genetically engineered organism that make their way into daily life. Perhaps a way to make headway is for scientists to work on conducting more thorough and accurate tests for GMOs. Until that time, it is up to people every day to be examining what food they eat and researching sufficiently whether the GMO ingredients seem safe or may cause lasting damage in the end.
Works Cited
de Vendômois, Joël Spiroux, et al. “Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests.” International Journal of Biological Sciences, Ivyspring International Publisher, 5 Oct. 2010, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952409/.
Hsiao, Jennifer J. “GMOs and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful?” Science in the News, 26 Jan. 2019, sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/.
Jenkins, McKay. Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet. Penguin Random House, 2017.
Loening, Ulrich E. “A Challenge to Scientific Integrity: a Critique of the Critics of the GMO Rat Study Conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini Et Al. (2012).” Environmental Sciences Europe, SpringerOpen, 1 Jan. 1970, link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-015-0048-3.
Meyer, Hartmut, and Angelika Hilbeck. “Rat Feeding Studies with Genetically Modified Maize - a Comparative Evaluation of Applied Methods and Risk Assessment Standards.” Environmental Sciences Europe, SpringerOpen, 1 Dec. 2013, link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2190-4715-25-33.
“Scientists Compare Rat Genome with Human, Mouse.” Genome.gov, 31 Mar. 2004, www.genome.gov/11511308/2004-release-scientists-compare-rat-genome.
Seralini, Gilles-Eric et al. “Republished Study: Long-Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup- Tolerantgenetically Modified Maize.” Environmental Sciences Europe, SpringerOpen, 1 Jan. 1970, enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5.
Essay
