The article is a ten item list that explains why Genetically Modified foods are not as good as they are claimed to be. The author goes on and lists the reasons why GM foods are not as good as they claim to be, and gives supporting details as to why he chose the said reasons. He states that GM foods are not backing the claims that they are said to do, can cost more, are able to interbreed with other plants of that species, that they are a risk to human health, and that they do not produce as much as they are said to.
Throught the entire article he seems to attack genetically modified food and demonize it. He gives no acknowledgement to an opposing view and gives no alternative to his way of thinking about the subject. He uses multiple references to articles to build credibility, but other than that he appeals mostly to emotion. He does not seem to propose an alternative other than a simple: "no GM foods" policy world-wide. The article is most similar to the style of a counter argument, because of the countering of the claims that GM is good for the world. Also, this article points out flaws that arise with growing GM foods. This argument is not horrible, but it is not good either. The argument made here is not proposing any change that can be done, nor is it directly targeting one proponent of a pro-GM argument. Instead, it focuses on covering all the problems that the author has with the GM foods.
