GMO products and their effects on health and environment have been causing numerous discussions among scientists, public organizations, authorities, and heads of companies for decades. Yet, GM crops and their products have already appeared on the shelves of supermarkets, while gene-engineered (GE) animals must satisfy the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations to be approved. In the examined articles, gene-engineered salmon is considered from the positions of its environmental safety as well as consumer risks and benefits. The core discussion in the articles and environmental argumentative essay topics relates to the compliance of AquaBounty’s salmon with FDA’s requirements since the quality of legislation and its correlation with GE salmon influence both public and commercial interests. One of the articles is written by the member of a public interest organization, while another one is based on the interview with a chief of a commercial salmon producing company. Therefore, the angle of views differs in both of them. Gregory Jaffe, the author of the first article “Genetically Engineered Salmon Healthy for You, but Is it Healthy for the Earth?” represents a public sector regarding environmental issues and human health safety. He was a member of Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology, FDA’s Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee; he provides biosafety expertise and works as a Director of the Project on Biotechnology for Center for Public Science in the Public Interest. His background ranges from natural sciences to governmental issues and law. Jaffe has a BA degree in Biology and Government and a law degree at Harvard Law School (Center for Science in the Public Interest). At the same time, the interviewed Dr. R. Stotish from the article “Genetically Modified Salmon: Changing the Future” represents the interests of the company that produce GE salmon. He has worked on commercialization of new animal health products for years, and he was appointed as an Executive Director, President, and CEO of AquaBounty Technologies in 2008 (Aqua Bounty). The range of his expertise covers biochemistry and developing animal products for the market. Dr. R. Stotish has degrees in biochemistry and he has held leading positions in some agricultural chemistry and animal pharmacy companies (Aqua Bounty). Presumably, both experts have some relation to the major sides of the discussion, so while talking about facts, they also express their opinions either outright or covertly. Although in both articles facts and opinions are almost clearly differentiated, the author’s recommendations in the first article and the judgments of the CEO in the second one are sometimes not clearly defined. Firstly, Jaffe (2010) talks about scientifically founded benefits of GE salmon, accenting on the environment ones, as well as discusses what FDA has to do before approving the product for the market in an advisory form. For instance, he states that FDA needs authority to "analyze and address the full range of environmental concerns that GE animals might pose" (Jaffe, 2010, p. 33). Secondly, he emphasizes on drawing adequate authorities to FDA decision making and says that Congress should provide FDA with adequate authority "to ensure the safety of all engineered animals through a transparent and participatory regulatory process” (Jaffe, 2010, p. 33). Similarly, in the second article, the statements of Dr. Stotish are marked from scientific facts, but some sentences dimly distinguish facts from opinions: “AquAdvantage salmon had been referred to as the tastier fish” (The Fish Site, 2010). Although most statements in the articles are founded, some of them need more evidence. Despite the fact that the articles enable the reader to get very similar general ideas about GE salmon, there are some contradictory points that can be perceived as bias. Firstly, Jaffe (2010) hesitates that the impact that gene-modified animals cause on the environment has been studied, although he has provided a few arguments in favor of GE salmon’s ecologically friendliness. He also states that FDA does not have enough authority to forbid approval if animals have a significant impact on the environment (Jaffe, 2010). Differently, in the second article, the author refers to Dr. Stotish’s statement that many studies claim that AquAdvantage salmon is not dangerous for the nature (The Fish Site, 2010). Secondly, Jaffe (2010) notices that AquaBounty promotes the potential benefits of its salmon if produced on a large scale, although the company’s application is limited “only to one egg production facility in Canada and one fish production facility in Panama with four inland tanks...” (p. 32). On the contrary, the second article paraphrases Dr. Stotish’s words that he has had a number of potential clients interested in purchasing salmon eggs (The Fish Site, 2010). In this way, the contradictory and emphasized statements might confuse a reader’s logical perception. Speaking about their logical structure, the articles offer a reason-conclusion narrative, but both of them have peculiarities. In the same way, the articles are divided into subgroups. The first one includes an introduction, four subgroups, and conclusion. The second material comprises introduction and six subgroups. At the same time, the manner of delivering ideas varies in both articles. Thus, Jaffe’s narrative is concerned with FDA governmental regulations and environmental issues regarding GE animals. At the beginning of each subgroup, Jaffe (2010) usually brings facts and then finds a discursive point, drawing the conclusion at the end. On the other hand, in the interview-based article, the author builds a story by mixing facts and Dr. R. Stotish’s statements in such a way that the author’s part is almost unnoticeable. This article is constructed as a chain of statements, with one or several following ideas in each subgroup. Therefore, the articles have discussed the GE fish issue in a well-structured manner, with peculiar narratives regarding the specialties in content. Consequently, the two discussed articles have made an investment into a broader discussion on gene-modified products. The authors have discussed benefits of using gene-engineered animals and regulations towards the commercialization of the products, giving a chance to express both public interest and commercial positions. In one of the articles, the author has emphasized the need to improve FDA regulations to provide environmental safety, while another one has offered information about AquaBounty salmon through the interview with CEO of the company. Although they speak about the same topic, the articles give readers two perspectives that demand attentiveness and critical thinking.