Reading passage
Genetically modified (GM) crops are produced using recombinant DNA technology that allows favorable genes to be transferred from one organism to another.
The successful expression of transferred genes may have a variety of advantages in GM crops, such as increased growth rate or an ability to grow in harsh conditions. As such, this technology has several far-reaching benefits on a global scale.
First, GM crops can improve human health as they contain fewer potential allergens and higher levels of essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals. They can also play a potential role in fighting malnutrition in developing countries where poor people rely heavily on single food sources such as rice for their diet. Typically, rice does not contain sufficient quantities of essential nutrients required to prevent malnutrition, but GM rice has a much higher nutritional value, making it more beneficial to human health.
Moreover, a direct benefit of GM crops is the reduction of pesticide applications. This means that farmers have less exposure to harmful chemicals, and there will be lower amounts of pesticide residues in food and feed crops. For example, insect resistance in GM maize has been achieved by transferring the gene for toxin creation from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin is commonly used as an insecticide in agriculture and is considered safe to use on food and feed crops.
GM crops that have the ability to produce this toxin themselves require no additional pesticide application.
Lastly, due to the higher yield and lower production cost of GM crops, farmers who purchase GM seeds will benefit economically and produce more food at affordable prices. With more and more multinational GM seed companies emerging, it is getting easier for farmers in developing nations to purchase GM seeds and enjoy the financial benefits of GM crop cultivation.
Listening script
It may be true that there are some benefits of growing geneticaly modified crops, but it is also important to look at the risks involved. When you look at the GM farming industry in depth, there are some major disadvantages and risks associated with genetically modified crops.
First, while there might be potential for GM crops to improve human health, none of these claims are based on real scientific data. Very few extensive studies have been carried out on the potential human health impacts of GM crop consumption and many of the studies that have been conducted have been met with skepticism and criticism.
Moreover, several leading agricultural scientists have expressed concerns about allergenicity.
Because genetic modification usually adds or mixes proteins that were not native to the original crop, it carries the massive potential for causing new allergic reactions in the human body.
With regard to the second point, the need for fewer pesticides for GM crops may sound good, but the repeated use of a single pesticide over time increases pesticide resistance in the target species. So, the extensive use of a limited number of pesticides has a high likelihood of speeding up the evolution of resistant pest populations. For instance, in India, farmers have reported that the pink bollworm has become resistant to GM Bt cotton, and similar cases of pest resistance have been reported in Australia and the United States.
Finally, the increased dependence on multinational seed companies can be problematic for many farmers, particularly those in poorer regions. The companies that patent and control GM seeds are known to inflate seed prices, and this is already having a significant effect on the global economy.
In the end, global food production will be dominated by a few seed companies, and this will massively increase the dependence of developing countries on industrialized nations.
My answer
The passage introduces three benefits of genetically modified crops. However, the lecturer effectively challenges the points made in the reading passage by providing three reasons.
Firstly, although the reading passages claims that GM crops can improve human health, the lecturer disputes this assertion with saying that there have been non scientific data until now and many experts are skeptical and critical for this claim. Rather, she warns that it could be harmful and make negative allergens to people because the componets in GM crops is not native at all like mixed protein.
Secondly, the lecturer contends that lower amounts of pesticide sounds good but fewer number of pesticide could mean that pest can reinforce their resistance easier than before and even leading to high evolution. She highlights that this negative incidiences are reported in some countries like India and Austraila and the U.S.
Lastly, the lecturer refutes that GM crops are beneficial in terms of financial perspective. She highlights that the patent fees regarding GM seed rather increase overall cost of GM food. And a few companies in developed countries dominates these patents. This economical environment puts financial pressure on the related-organization and farmers in developing nations.
Evaluation
Your writing has done an excellent job at summarizing the key points from the listening and reading passages. It clearly identifies the main points and how the speaker refutes the points from the reading passage. Your writing is clear and well-structured, which aids in the reader's comprehension.
Here are your scores based on the TOEFL Writing guidelines:
Task Achievement: 4.5/5 - You've mentioned the main points from the reading and listening passages, but the third point could be developed more thoroughly to highlight the potential for economic dependency and the risks this could bring for farmers.
Coherence and Cohesion: 5/5 - Your essay is well structured and the points follow each other in a logical order. You've used linking words effectively to connect ideas.
Lexical Resource: 4/5 - Your vocabulary usage is good, but there are some words that could be replaced with more precise vocabulary.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 4/5 - Your grammar is generally good, but there are a few minor errors that need correcting. For example, "non scientific data" should be "no scientific data" and "allergens to people" should be "allergens for people".
Overall, your score would be around 17.5/20. Good job! There's just a little more work needed to reach a perfect score. I recommend focusing on expanding your vocabulary and fine-tuning your grammar.
Modification (1)
The article delineates three potential advantages of cultivating genetically modified crops. However, the lecturer effectively refutes each of these claims, presenting counterarguments for each point.
Initially, the text posits that GM crops can enhance human health. However, the lecturer disputes this notion, arguing that there is a lack of solid scientific evidence to back up this claim. She also points out the potential health hazards these crops could pose. Specifically, she highlights the risk of inducing novel allergic reactions in consumers due to the introduction of non-native proteins within GM crops.
Subsequently, the lecturer challenges the assertion from the reading passage that GM crops lead to a reduction in pesticide use. While this might initially seem beneficial, the lecturer underscores that the limited variety of pesticides used could inadvertently facilitate an accelerated development of resistance among pests. To support this point, she refers to reported instances of such resistance in various countries, including India, Australia, and the United States.
Lastly, the speaker contests the purported financial benefits of GM crops described in the reading. She explains that the exorbitant patent fees associated with GM seeds can inflate the overall cost of GM food production. Furthermore, she emphasizes that a small number of companies, predominantly located in developed countries, monopolize these patents. Such a scenario, she warns, could place a significant financial burden on agricultural entities and farmers in developing countries.
Modification (2)
The reading discusses the potential benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops, but the lecture disputes these advantages and instead points out several concerns associated with GM crops.
Firstly, the reading suggests that GM crops can enhance human health. The lecture contradicts this, indicating that there's no solid scientific evidence supporting this claim. The lecturer further cautions that GM crops, which may contain foreign proteins, could induce new allergic reactions in humans.
Secondly, while the reading claims that GM crops could reduce pesticide use, the lecturer argues this could lead to increased resistance in pests. She underscores that the limited variety of pesticides used can expedite the evolution of resistant pests, citing instances of pest resistance in countries like India, Australia, and the U.S.
Lastly, the lecture challenges the reading's assertion that GM crops could offer economic benefits. The lecturer highlights that patent fees for GM seeds can increase the overall cost of GM food production. Moreover, the control of these patents by a few companies in developed countries could impose financial strain on farmers and organizations in developing nations.