Arguments Against Genetically Modified Food

In November of 2014, a bill called Proposition 105 was on the ballot in Colorado that, if passed, would require any foods with genetically modified ingredients, to be labeled. Although the bill did not pass, the debate on whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) should be labeled or not rages on. As defined by dictionary.com, a GMO is defined as “An organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering.” This genetic alteration that takes place, is not possible in nature, which has some people apprehensive about GMOs overall safety. Bills like Proposition 105 have already passed in the states of Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine, giving these three states the same rights that 64 countries around

There are varied arguments that favor or are against compulsory labeling of genetically engineered food products. Those who argue for the labeling of such products argue that consumers have a right to know what is contained in their food, particularly food products for which there have been health and environmental concerns (Caswell 26). Compulsory labeling will permit consumers to identify and avoid those food products that may cause them problems. On the contrary, those who argue against mandatory labeling point out that

In “Consumers Call on FDA to Label GE Foods” Colin O’Neil feels that not labeling GMOs infringes on an American citizens freedom. Colin O’ Neil argued that “one choice Americans are not free to make is whether their food contains genetically engineered ingredients” based on the fact that the FDA is not required to label GMOs (O’Neil 31). Back in 1992 “the FDA issued a policy statement that GE foods were not ‘materially’ different from non-GE foods and thus did not need to be labeled”(O’Neil 31); Colin O’Neil rebutted “We as consumers no longer base our decisions solely on what we can see or taste or smell, so why should the FDA continue to do so?” (O’Neil 32) The FDA believed that GE foods were the exact same as non-GE foods and did not need any labels because the consumer could not tell the difference. O’Neil wanted to change the FDA’s stance on labeling because “90 percent of Americans want GE foods to be labeled and consumers do not expect food to be genetically engineered absent labeling” (O’Neil 32) even with a great portion of American citizens wanting labels the FDA still insisted that there was no need despite the fact it is the duty of the FDA to protect consumers. The FDA’s stance on labeling GMOs affects the American consumer because they cannot make the decision whether or not to purchase an item containing GMOs thus forcing them to consume something that contained a substance

There is a growing controversy in regard to genetically modified food. Should GMO products be labeled, and should there be more research into possible problems related to genetically modifying our food? While there are many benefits to farmers and consumers, there is very little negative evidence to show that GMOs are dangerous. Therefore, with this lack of evidence against the harmfulness of genetically modifying food, buying and consuming altered foods should not be a problem.

Genetically modified foods are one of the most common products in the market today. Corn, tomatoes, and strawberries are only just a few of the many examples. In the scientific community, there’s a huge debate between whether or not genetically modified foods should still be something that should be happening. People who oppose the idea of genetically modified foods claim that using them will harm people’s health as well as nature itself, while people who support the idea of genetically modified foods claim that it will be beneficial to people’s health and problems including starvation as a whole. I am in favor of genetically modified foods as I firmly believe that they are more beneficial than harmful.

"Biotechnology involves any technique that uses living organisms or parts there of to make or modify products, to improve plants or animals or to develop micro organisms for specific uses" (Dr Sriwatanapongse, www.afic.org)

Genetically modified organisms seems to be a topic that stirs up quite a bit of controversy. Although there are convincing and persuading arguments for both sides, the side that seems to be more dominant is the argument for genetically modified food. In many cases they have been found to be helpful, allow the organism to last longer, and become an improved version of the original organism that it started from.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as genetically modified or engineered foods, are created by forcing a piece of DNA from a totally different species, such as bacteria or viruses, into the DNA of a plant or animal. There are no long-term studies demonstrating that GMOs are safe for humans and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not do its own safety testing. Since most people like to know what they are eating, the question is: “Should GMO products be labeled”?

At The rate these genetically modified plants are growing, so is the controversy. many people as well as scientist from an " genetically modified salmon article," believe that company's should not be allowed to farm or sell the salmon until we know more possible effects it could have on the environment and on human health. But a company named AquaBounty Technologies and the FDA believes that the salmon is safe to eat and would have "no significant in pact. These

However, there is no consensus from the scientific community yet. Due to the lack of consensus, there have been numerous court cases dismissed with regards to enforced labeling on GM foods. Those against labeling often cite court cases such as Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. The 1992 court case challenged the FDA’s “generally recognized as safe” statement (Acosta). GRAS is a term used in the food industry that references a food additive that is said to be safe by experts. The court ruled that “FDA’s interpretation of the FFDCA’s labeling requirement was reasonable” and “genetic modification does not ‘materially’ alter foods” (Acosta). Those for mandatory labeling however cite that most of Europe has regulations regarding labeling food products. Although labels are required, there is little effect on the economics of GM food in Europe (Gruère and Rao 5). Therefore, if there is no economic difference between a labeled GM food and unlabeled product, enforcing legislation would be a waste. To enforce something that still will not deter consumers and to spend millions if not billions would be irresponsible.

In these couple of years, people’s attention have focused on the word ”Genetically Modified Organisms”. From the cows that produce milk for us to drink to wheat and rice which are the main staple food for the world’s population, GMO has affected all aspects of our lives; It seems that we cannot “escape” from the intrude of GMO. Even the times of searching GMO on Google was tripled since the end of 2012. Most people do have negative perspectives on GMO and believe it will damage our health and the nature. We, however, cannot ignore the benefits we earned from it. This essay will address the “for and against” of the use of GMO.

GMO or Genetically modified organism is the result of a laboratory process where DNA genes from on species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrated animal or plant. The genes can be from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals of a different species and humans. Some call GMOs transgenic, genetic engineering, or genetic modification. Genetic engineering is done by using viruses or Bactria to infect animals or plant cells with new stranger DNA. Coating DNA on tiny metal pellets, than firing the DNA in cells with a special gun. Injecting new stranger DNA into fertilized eggs with a very small fine needle and even using electric shocks to create holes in membrane covering sperm than; forcing the new stranger DNA into the sperm.

GMO food has long been in the focus of heated debates among both scientists and common consumers.Controversial nature of gene-altering has given rise to a world-wide movement against GMO food.Many states have forbidden GMO food growing,but the great GMO dispute is likely going to escalate considering the current food crisis.

People oppose the use of any genetically modified crops because they are harmful and unatural. According to Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering, Genetic engineering can make foods that were once safe to eat a threat to people with allergies. Because this process is unpredictable, new substances can develop in engineered foods. The FDA knows this and does some testing, but there are no guarantees. Besides the new allergies, inserting genes into plants and animals can cause existing genes to react in unknown ways, including reduced nutritional values and changes in organism quality. Some people argue that they do not want their food treated, they want natural food! Another thing that they are saying is that by engineering plants

    Humans have been intentionally changing the genetic properties of animals and plants for centuries, through all the standard breeding techniques of the use of radiation and chemicals to create random mutations, some of them turn out to be useful, for example Genetic Modified (GM) Foods. What is Genetically Modified (GM) Foods? GM foods are foods that are derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered. Also they are called genetically engineered (GE) or transgenic crop that are generally made of a genetic marker. GMO have a very long history. In fact, they have been around for thousands of years. So perhaps the conflict over their safety shouldn't be about whether they are safe for humans to consume, but rather how they will impact long term.Even though Genetically Modified Foods (GMF) would increase food costs, these can improve yields for farmers, provide nutritional benefits,and help to alleviate the increasing global population of third world countries.