Argumentative Essay On False Advertising

GMOs, (genetically modified organisms) have been a topic of interest in the social eyes for years. Since they’ve been created, many people have voiced and written about their opinions on GMOs, and whether they are dangerous or not. Created to expand the genetic diversity of crops and animals, many don’t know whether GMOs are good or bad, and neither do researchers. Though there hasn’t been any evidence claiming whether GMOs are good or bad, it has certainly not stopped the public from creating their own opinions. Since no one knows the truth behind GMO, it has opened a window of opportunities for companies including Monsanto to voice their support of GMO, while other companies like the Non-GMO Project voice their

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

According to the commercial speech doctrine, only deceptive speech that is considered commercial may be regulated. General deceptive speech is not commercial, may not be regulated. When deciding what may and may not be regulated, it is important to understand the subtle differences in what is considered commercial and non commercial speech. An analyzation of false advertising would give further understanding to the notion of commercial speech and how it may be degenerative to a society when untruthful.

Many countries view differently the advertising of harmful products placing personal responsibility on consumers and regulating what consumers are allowed to indulge in. The US highly regulates some forms of harmful products, allow others, and still give some a pass. An example of this, cigarette advertising, it is only allowed on certain media, excluding television and radio, while alcohol is permitted on all media. Young or uninformed consumers usually fall victim to this type of advertising and marketing. The third issue is, Marketing and Advertising Tactics. Companies use all sorts of method to attract consumer from subliminal advertising, to emotional appeals taking advantage of less educated individuals. In 2012 two leading paint companies, Sherwin-Williams Company and PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., agreed to settle with the FTC regarding charges that they did mislead consumers into believing that some of their paint was free of volatile organic compounds, in other words, harmful chemicals. When a company markets or advertises a product and states that it is free of an ingredient that might be an environmental or health hazard it must not contain or very little (meaning trace), of the ingredient. Another ethical issue example in marketing and advertising tactics, huge drug companies try to influence medical professionals to prescribe their drugs by hosting lavish events and showering doctors with gifts and benefits. Consumers are

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

GMOs are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. The GMO debate has a huge gap just like the climate change’s ambiguous debate. Some people are for the consumption of it and have as arguments that GMOs will feed the future population of the world that is expected to double in the few years to come, or that scientists can build stronger crops that resist to pests, therefore less use of pesticides. Some are against these ideas because they think that GMOs represent a threat to the environment and that they can cause a lot of health problems. The goal of this paper is to look at two articles “The GMO Debate is Over Again” by Mark Lynas and" Seeds of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering" by Dr. Joseph Mercola, and see where the use rhetorical strategies are effective and where they are not.

In this article, Tamara Thompson asks common questions regarding genetically modified organisms otherwise known as GMOs. She gives a decent definition of GMOs as plant seeds that are modified to resist certain insects as well as harsh weather conditions. It is a very biased article, drawing attention to the company, Monsanto, in particular. She repeatedly assures her readers that GMOs are safe and that Monsanto currently works to the standards of organizations, such as the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA), Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She concludes with the benefits of GMOs nutritional value and how they contribute to reducing draws on natural resources such as fossil fuels. This article was beneficial, although biased it gave insight to what companies such as Monsanto want the public to believe. I found this article in Opposing Viewpoints with the search entry being genetically modified foods.

Genetically modified foods, otherwise known as GM foods, have been the source of enormous controversy for the past several decades. Both sides of the debate for and against GM foods bring empirical evidence to the table in an effort to disqualify the opposition, and it is clear that much is a stake for the companies and people involved. But what does this mean for the average consumer? When the politics are shunted aside, people still want to know if what they’re eating is safe, and good for (or at least neutral to) our environment. In this essay, I will attempt to shed light on these questions with hard facts and separate the political fictions from truth. To do so, I will first explain what

Abhorrently, today's consumers are faced with discomfort regarding food safety. For the past 20 years millions of people around the world have been eating plants genetically modified by scientists. Genetically modified crops are tweaked to resist the harsh herbicides. In a recent article titled Labels for GMOs are bad the author argues that GMOs are safe for human consumption. In fact,Suspected culprit in devastating 'fiber disease' statistics show that “Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S contain genetically modified ingredients.” ( The Editors 1 ) I strongly oppose The Editors point of view towards GMO labeling because consumers want to know what they are eating. GMOs should indeed be labeled to inform what's in the product

In 1994, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first GMO, Flavr Savr tomato, for sale on grocery store shelves. Uninformed, the people continued buying and consuming the “normal” grocery store products. However, as the number of GMOs in markets increased, the world noticed a higher number of cancers, food allergies, and antibiotic resistances. One reason for creating GM crops is due to the fact that big corporations gain huge profit. In “10 scientific studies proving GMOs can be harmful to human health”, Arjun Walia passionately asserts that genetically modified organisms are extremely detrimental to a person’s health. I agree with Arjun Walia’s claim because a plethora of studies show the negative effects of genetically modified organisms. The world should eliminate the creation of genetically modified organisms because the products ruin the environment, cause economic issues with

It was decided almost 20 years about by the Food and Drug Administration that GMOs do not need to be labeled, despite the consumers’ desire for GMO labeling. Consumers’ demanding to know what is in their food has lead to the proposed legislation of GMO labeling from more than twenty states. Health safety is a large part of the proponents’ argument for GMO labeling (Murray 2016). The consumers right to know, right to choose, and ethical rights are also all reasons for GMO labeling policy. The oppositions’ arguments against mandatory GMO labeling are that it could falsely alarm consumers, impose extra costs on consumers and lead to restricts on consumer choice (Hemphill 2015). There would be more harm than good to come from

An issue plighting the discussion of GMOs is the marketing behind GMOs labeling. While there is already in place regulation to ensure that companies comply with moderate labeling of any additives (Runge) some people wish to see labeling directly notating GMOs in food products. This has led some experts to think that more labeling may have some adverse effects on the economy. As Dr. Runge says in his study of negative GMO labeling, “Given the extent to which GMOs have already entered the food and fiber chain, such a label would convey relatively little information” (Runge). There is the possibility that labels might inaccurately convey health risks to the consumer. Sales for non-GMO products will then rise due to fear invoking advertising. Markets and Consumers have already seen this in the dairy industry. Markets around America and the rest of the modern world are now confusing consumers with “Greenwashing” rhetoric. Promoting more expensive Non-GMOs products and non-GMOs movements for increased

Making way down the fruit section in the grocery store, the mom picks out a box of strawberries. She thought it was just ordinary strawberries because there was nothing different about the fruit. However, what she did not know was that the strawberries contained genetically modified organisms. Also known as GMO, it is the removal of DNA from another species then artificially injected into an unrelated species: plant or animal (“GMO Education”). GMOs are also worldwide out in the market for anyone to buy. Although it may be in the open market throughout the world, not all consumers know what is inside their food. There are disputes about labeling GMOs: that it matters or that it does not matter. Scientists claim that GMOs are nontoxic, however others propose that the knowledge of risks are not explored enough to complete understand or agree that it is safe (“GMO Foods Should Be Labeled”). Either way,

There is much controversy when discussing the topic of Genetically Modified Organisms. Whether it may concern moral or ethical factors, there always seems to be considerable arguments either defending or arguing against GMOs. Based on research, GMOs prove to be extremely present in our food supply worldwide. Chemical engineering, fertilization, as well as other methods of manufacturing come into question when formulating an opinion on GMOs. Due to the manipulation of biotechnology that effectively yields products like GMOs, the public is not only susceptible to whatever side effects that may come with chemically altered produce but also the mind boggling conscience of consuming food that isn’t necessarily “all natural” or “natural”.

The science behind advertising is something that is carefully crafted and a lot of thought research goes into it. When a company is trying to promote their product they have to come up with an ad that sticks out and catches your attention long enough for you to consider buying their product. One big factor they have to consider is who is the audience in particular they are trying to lure in. For example, if a sports drink company was trying to appeal to boys they would probably show boys playing something like football tackling each other and getting muddy because football is considered a male dominant sport and getting dirty and being tuff is just what is generally thought of when it comes to boys